Hillary Clinton is Far More Honest Than the Propagandists are Telling You

[Shadow Wolf]

I guess I don't get offended if an employee's beliefs are protected by not wedding a couple as long as there is someone else there to wed them.

This would have had much deeper implications than a gay wedding, as the ability to not hire based on religious objects was one of the "issues" and "concerns" brought up.

People, in my opinion, love to get worked up rather than accept others and meet in the middle. It's really harmless.

There is no middle ground with hate and intolerance. The Supreme Court has already said such things are not allowed when it comes to certain groups.

See illusional hate and discrimination when it's not even there.

There's nothing illusion about it. Mike Pence wanted Christians to be able to discriminate against homosexuals and transgender people. It's not an illusion when a certain group faces high rates of unemployment. It's not an illusion when people worry you're going to perv on them and molest them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hillary's honesty is in the news.....
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...rmer-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family
An excerpt....
“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”

He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

“The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” he said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”

I can cite a current FBI guy saying they probably aren't going to find anything incriminated against Hillary with this new case that is taking another look at her emails, and that the investigations were real and adequate (something I did actually read yesterday but am feeling too lazy to go search my history for it).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Well, of course.

Caveat this all you want, that she wasn't prosecuted does not indicate any special treatment. In fact, Commey said that to actually indict her would be to treat her differently.

 

[idav]

I can cite a current FBI guy saying they probably aren't going to find anything incriminated against Hillary with this new case that is taking another look at her emails, and that the investigations were real and adequate (something I did actually read yesterday but am feeling too lazy to go search my history for it).

Sure there are thousands of agents that would think the whole email thing is silly, but there are like a hundred agents that are willing to quit over not doing more. Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sure there are thousands of agents that would think the whole email thing is silly, but there are like a hundred agents that are willing to quit over not doing more. Don't let the door hit them on the way out.

It seems many do not realize these individual people who work for the FBI are not speaking for the FBI.

 

[Notanumber]

This video poses some interesting questions.

These are just a few.

Does she have anyone to blame but herself?

Will Obama pardon any of Clinton’s mob?

Will Comey stick it right in their face?

Is there now a moral problem in the FBI and are the rank & file disgusted with the initial so-called investigation?

Is something big coming out?

 

[Revoltingest]

I can cite a current FBI guy saying they probably aren't going to find anything incriminated against Hillary with this new case that is taking another look at her emails, and that the investigations were real and adequate (something I did actually read yesterday but am feeling too lazy to go search my history for it).

We should all cite any news which is relevant.
But I know it's all about discussion...no one's
vote will be decided by such things.

 

[Underhill]

Toward fact checking, if it's even plausible to know or conclude, and words... of course.

So then how do you know anything if it cannot be fact checked and you can't know the truth yourself?

 

[Underhill]

Read'm?
I write'm!

You will encounter an old friend.

Imagine my surprise to find you were 100% right.

Sure, I meet old friends a few times a week for cards... even dinner occasionally... but props on your skills. Cat women around the planet are enthralled.

 

[ShivaFan]

People need to start using the correct term and get up to speed on the dialog.

It's now called Weinergate.

 

[Revoltingest]

People need to start using the correct term and get up to speed on the dialog.

It's now called Weinergate.

Posting pix, eh!
Well, take this....

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think I'm gonna laugh should it be determined there's nothing in these emails either because so many people will be so disappointed, but mask it in rage and anger.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well you should. You haven't established even one at this point. You're just blathering on in a pointless ramble. Major points for the confidence but there's simply no substance you're adding to the discussion.

Everyone wants to label, label, label but many are unwilling to substantiate their labels making them meaningless. Look at @ShivaFan 's meme in the preceding post. It boldly declares Clinton to be a war monger, and I've heard this claim many times. I have yet to read a cogent explanation with requisite evidence to substantiate such a claim. There's more evidence that angels dance on the head of a pin. But hey, if you want a meme, here's a funny one I just saw:

I'm not one for memes. Which parts need support? Give me an example of what you need for "support" is it a link? Is it a Video? Or would you like a meme?

Lets talk specifically on the War Hawk-ness of Hillary.
2002- voted for military action in Iraq.
2009- Supported the Surge in Afghanistan
2011- Supported the Libyan civil war for a regime change.
2012- To end her time as secretary of state she supported Syrian intervention. Significantly more so than Obama.

Bernie Sanders for example had the exact opposite vote and opinion on all 4 of these examples. He is a shining example of non-hawk and anti-military action. She is not.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A much better, that is cogent, post.

What makes a 'warmonger' then? Anyone who votes for a war? Anyone who accepts a fight? Someone who goes to the defense of others? I would disagree.

War: conflict between countries. Monger: someone who trades in a petty/unethical activity.

To me, a warmonger is someone who actively, promotes and/or profits from war for petty or selfish reasons. It doesn't have to be public, but there has to be a potential for profit. Being a hawk (predisposed to war) doesn't make someone a warmonger. So, while I find Clinton a bit more hawkish than I like, albeit not as hawkish as the statements Trump has made, I don't see her as being a warmonger. Where's the profit? Trump on the other hand, has made bombing the crap out of Islam a part of his platform. For him, getting elected is part of the profit. For her, well: she's kind of embarrassed by it.

In that regard, considering the profit aspect as being requisite for being called a monger of anything, I find Trump to not only be a warmonger, but even worse: a fearmonger.

FWIW, I love memes. I find them funny.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where's the profit?

Allies, favors, wealth, positions, war is so profitable to some, especially the plunder, and because war is an inevitability of the state, we can find a long history of "intimate relations" between merchant classes and political classes.

 

[Revoltingest]

To me, a warmonger is someone who actively, promotes and/or profits from war for petty or selfish reasons.

Surveying some definitions, your distinction is not a common one, either in N Americastan or Britain.
A sample....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/warmonger
"Warmonger"...."hawk"....interchangeable enuf, the etymological component "monger" notwithstanding.

Trump on the other hand, has made bombing the crap out of Islam a part of his platform. For him, getting elected is part of the profit. For her, well: she's kind of embarrassed by it.

By this use of the word, "profit", Hillary stands to benefit just as much as Trump does.
She's gotten much credit here & in the media for being "tough", eg, supporting continuation of both wars, threatening to "obliterate Iran". Democrats (like Pubs) are generally fine with war because they're fixing foreign countries & nation building. Up until recently, her talk tough strategy has worked, putting her far ahead of Trump in the polls.

Btw, I'm glad you find her too hawkish.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You guys were probably not around for the Vietnam war. It was a war started over rubber and probably one of the big pushes to develop synthetic rubber. That was all about economics and we resented it. When the details of the Iraq war came out, it became obvious that the entire WMD set up was to start a war to benefit Halliburton. That's why many of us call it the "Halliburton War". None of the other wars we've been into seem to benefit the military-industrial complex in such an unethical manner. Could I be wrong about the pecuniary nature of the other wars? Certainly, but all you've given me is idle speculation in that regard. You want me to see them as profiteering in nature? Fine. Give me more than idle speculation then. Any and everything can be used nefariously but that doesn't mean it has. Show me the money. It's easy with the Vietnam and Halliburton wars.

Now, you might understand why I differentiate between being a hawk and a warmonger. Ethically, there's a world of difference. Generals are often hawks and not warmongers. Colin Powell is a reluctant hawk, but I would never call him a warmonger. He's got no qualms using force when required and will reluctantly use it when he's ordered to. Does he enjoy war? I don't think so and I don't see him making obscene profits off of it.

The rhetoric of war from Trump is as bombastic and OTT as it comes. The same is not true of Clinton.

 

[Notanumber]

Is this the last straw?

How could anyone vote for this?

We want the truth – we want Trump.

America’s Moment of Truth.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Keep dreaming. The right is doing a good job with the FUDDD, but their racism will ultiamately be their undoing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Keep dreaming. The right is doing a good job with the FUDDD, but their racism will ultiamately be their undoing.

Obama "racial campaigning" for Hillary isn't a good sign. Of course Hillary wouldn't have the appeal Obama did, but she just isn't motivating blacks or Hispanics to go vote. Actually, it seems Trump is doing more to get Hispanics to register and vote, but to vote against Trump, not for him.
It seems like this election will come down to either a couple of states (as it often does), or will be decided by Hispanics and women. (two groups who just do not have a favorable view of Trump, one with a historically higher turnout rate that other groups, and the other looking at historic turnouts for their own group this year)