2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal

Seems relevant to me: why is one person admirable and the other a war criminal unfit to hold office?

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

Was Rice secretary of state advising Obama on Libya, Syria, giving a reset button to Russia, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in Europe, accept $25 million from the Saudis' into the Clinton foundation then say she is pro-woman, get a Clinton friend and foundation donor to do building work for Clinton foundation donor Denis O'Brien in Haiti...
So what percentage is Rice in the polls since this is a thread about the Presidential race?

It's a comparison to see if you are being consistent on criticism of Hillary which is fair enough.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

No she was Secretary when we went to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, labeled a bunch of countries an Axis of Evil, facilitated deals with the oil and gas industry, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in the middle east, smart-bombed the crap out of civilians, gunned down civilians for holding cameras, gunned downed people for aiding the wounded, irradiated half of Iraq, mutated a generation of children, need I go on?

Your deflection is weak and your doublethink impressive.

So what was Colin Powell doing when the Iraq war and Afghanistan war started?

You say I am doing deflection, you are not even posting fact.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

It's a comparison to see if you are being consistent on criticism of Hillary which is fair enough.

But some don't even know the facts.

Amerika

Hillary Clinton considers about a quarter of Americans as deplorables, racistis, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, and irredeemable. Now it comes out she considers much of America’s youth as basement dwellers with a attachment to free stuff with grabby ways. At this rate by election day she might consider only about 10% of America worthy of having her as our leader. The rest... Well, let them eat cake. And the media will continue to tout her as the Third Coming (Barack Obama was the Second Coming, you know).

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

But some don't even know the facts.

Well you are free to correct them and explain why you see it differently.

Overheal

I'll rephrase,

she was National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State, when we then while we were at war with Afghanistan, Iraq, labeled a bunch of countries an Axis of Evil, facilitated deals with the oil and gas industry, contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in the middle east, smart-bombed the crap out of civilians, gunned down civilians for holding cameras, gunned downed people for aiding the wounded, irradiated half of Iraq, mutated a generation of children, suspended habeus corpus, turned Guantanamo bay into a recruitment brochure, and she herself authorized the used of enhanced interrogation techniques. Should I continue?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton considers about a quarter of Americans as deplorables, racistis, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, and irredeemable. Now it comes out she considers much of America’s youth as basement dwellers with a attachment to free stuff with grabby ways. At this rate by election day she might consider only about 10% of America worthy of having her as our leader. The rest... Well, let them eat cake. And the media will continue to tout her as the Third Coming (Barack Obama was the Second Coming, you know).

Quotes taken out of context and misconstrued. Why do right wingers accept this hysteria from their "leaders". Plenty of issues to attack Hillary on. It's just like Obama's you didn't build it quote.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton considers about a quarter of Americans as deplorables, racistis, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, and irredeemable.

That would be inaccurate: just half of his supporters, which partisans amazingly think represents half the population - which is absurd.

Only 9% of Americans chose Hillary and Trump as nominees. 9%. About 30 million Republicans in total across the primaries, not a lot of whom I imagine would wish to support Donald trump, and would not be deplorables. But let's assume they are. Thats 15 million. Against a net population of 319m thats only 4.7% of the population - which would make you about 81.25% off your mark. And probably a lot more off, given fewer than 15 million actually support Trump seriously in any way.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

Well you are free to correct them and explain why you see it differently.

No new wars started when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state. That for one thing is neither her predecessor or her successor can say - all who were secretary of state for failed wars.
Iraq was improving due to the surge.


Under Clinton as Secretary of State she was all for attacking Libya got her way, because terrorists in Benghazi were rising up against Gaddafi and the argument from her and her coalition of idiots was 'we must protect the people of Benghazi'.
She jumped into that snake pit and when you help terrorists, the consequences are never good, so 9/11 2011 happened.

When she was secretary of state the drone strikes increased massively compared to under Bush along with double tap strikes on emergency workers.

Iraq this month, the Iraqis along with some American troops hope to free Mosul from years of terrorist occupation, whose occupation started under Clinton's watch.

Rice was secretary of state according to Overheal and then he rephrases as if to ignore how much less powerful she was on policy.
I am talking about decision makers.
Overheal may want to compare a security advisor to a secretary of state but I want to compare like with like.

Hillary was secretary of state for a huge ramp up of drone strikes, double tap strikes with reports 98% of people killed were innocent.
Hillary was there to support the wrong people against dictators, the dictators were/are not nice people but as we saw recently she is supporting the FSA who in video have said they want to kill Christians and will kill Americans if they don't leave.
The rise of ISIS under her watch.
Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who support Hamas.
Gave billions in an arms deal to Saudi Arabia for their war against Yemen.
Her reset button with Russia to say that relations will be better under Obama, now the worst since the cold war.
Hillary got so much wrong.

But Hillary is competent according to some here, she did a far far worse job than Rice ever did.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton considers about a quarter of Americans as deplorables, racistis, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, and irredeemable. Now it comes out she considers much of America’s youth as basement dwellers with a attachment to free stuff with grabby ways. At this rate by election day she might consider only about 10% of America worthy of having her as our leader. The rest... Well, let them eat cake. And the media will continue to tout her as the Third Coming (Barack Obama was the Second Coming, you know).

I think you need to check your maths there horse. She said half of "Trump supporters", not half of GOP voters. He got just over 50% of the GOP primary vote. Which is about 35% of the total electorate. So even at 100% turnout, that's about 17.5% of voters. So half of that is less than 9%.

I'd happily say 9% of the US population is deplorable. Given the continued existence of the KKK, Westboro baptist church, the Aryan nation et al.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

No new wars started when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state. That for one thing is neither her predecessor or her successor can say - all who were secretary of state for failed wars.
Iraq was improving due to the surge.


Under Clinton as Secretary of State she was all for attacking Libya got her way, because terrorists in Benghazi were rising up against Gaddafi and the argument from her and her coalition of idiots was 'we must protect the people of Benghazi'.
She jumped into that snake pit and when you help terrorists, the consequences are never good, so 9/11 2011 happened.

When she was secretary of state the drone strikes increased massively compared to under Bush along with double tap strikes on emergency workers.

Iraq this month, the Iraqis along with some American troops hope to free Mosul from years of terrorist occupation, whose occupation started under Clinton's watch.

Rice was secretary of state according to Overheal and then he rephrases as if to ignore how much less powerful she was on policy.
I am talking about decision makers.
Overheal may want to compare a security advisor to a secretary of state but I want to compare like with like.

Hillary was secretary of state for a huge ramp up of drone strikes, double tap strikes with reports 98% of people killed were innocent.
Hillary was there to support the wrong people against dictators, the dictators were/are not nice people but as we saw recently she is supporting the FSA who in video have said they want to kill Christians and will kill Americans if they don't leave.
The rise of ISIS under her watch.
Supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who support Hamas.
Gave billions in an arms deal to Saudi Arabia for their war against Yemen.
Her reset button with Russia to say that relations will be better under Obama, now the worst since the cold war.
Hillary got so much wrong.

But Hillary is competent according to some here, she did a far far worse job than Rice ever did.

The majority of the above have very little to do with the Secretary of State. It's a mish mash of presidential, joint chiefs and secretary of defence duties. I don't think you actually know what the Secretary of State is responsible for.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

The majority of the above have very little to do with the Secretary of State. It's a mish mash of presidential, joint chiefs and secretary of defence duties. I don't think you actually know what the Secretary of State is responsible for.

Foreign policy.
Yes the final decision lies with Obama, but what was she doing?

Did she not give a reset button to Russia to show how deluded she was, in that relations will be better under Obama than under Bush.
They are at their worst level since the Cold war.
She certainly has no Midas touch.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I think you need to check your maths there horse. She said half of "Trump supporters", not half of GOP voters. He got just over 50% of the GOP primary vote. Which is about 35% of the total electorate. So even at 100% turnout, that's about 17.5% of voters. So half of that is less than 9%.

I'd happily say 9% of the US population is deplorable. Given the continued existence of the KKK, Westboro baptist church, the Aryan nation et al.

Do you honestly think about 28 million Americans belong to the likes of the KKK, Westboro baptist church, and the Aryan nation?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Do you honestly think about 28 million Americans belong to the KKK, Westboro baptist church, and the Aryan nation?

I'm sorry, did you miss the math I presented?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Do you honestly think about 28 million Americans belong to the likes of the KKK, Westboro baptist church, and the Aryan nation?

Of course I don't. You don't do nuance at all, do you? I was presenting them as examples of horrible organisations alive and well in America. The KKK is particularly apt as they have endorsed Trump.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Foreign policy.
Yes the final decision lies with Obama, but what was she doing?

Did she not give a reset button to Russia to show how deluded she was, in that relations will be better under Obama than under Bush.
They are at their worst level since the Cold war.
She certainly has no Midas touch.

The ONLY point you can pin on Clinton are Russian relations as she was chief diplomat. The rest were far beyond her remit as Secretary of state.

You think the secretary of state decides on drone strikes? It's bizarre.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Of course I don't. You don't do nuance at all, do you? I was presenting them as examples of horrible organisations alive and well in America. The KKK is particularly apt as they have endorsed Trump.

The KKK prefer Hillary 'Goldwater girl' Clinton.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has received more than $20,000 in donations contributed by members of the Ku Klux Klan, a prominent member of the hate group said Monday.“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights, Vocativ reported.
Mr. Quigg, the leader of the Klan’s California chapter, announced last month that he had abandoned supporting Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in lieu of backing his likely Democratic opponent. The Klansman claims that members have raised more than $20,000 for Mrs. Clinton and have donated it anonymously to her campaign.
“She is friends with the Klan,” Mr. Quigg told Vocativ. “A lot of people don’t realize that.”

Overheal

So the money is sent to her anonymously so she has no constructive way of returning or rejecting it?

They could also just say they did.

Much ado about nothing. Meanwhile, Trump is retweeting them.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

I'll rephrase,

she was National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State, when we then while we were at war with Afghanistan,

When the USA was still at war with the Taliban. A war that began in 2001. Under GW Bush.

Overheal wrote: »

Iraq,

A war that began in 2003, under GW Bush, and which Obama committed to ending US involvement in - withdrawing in the second year of his presidency.

Overheal wrote: »

labeled a bunch of countries an Axis of Evil,

That would be GW Bush again.

Overheal wrote: »

facilitated deals with the oil and gas industry,

True.

Overheal wrote: »

contributed to a migrant crisis/terrorism in the middle east,

Debatable, but certainly she advocated regime change and ousting Assad in Syria.

Overheal wrote: »

smart-bombed the crap out of civilians,

It's happened for sure, though what influence the Secretary of State has on drone attack decision-making is unclear.

Overheal wrote: »

gunned down civilians for holding cameras,

I'm aware of US troops shooting cameramen prior to Hillary's tenure, but not during?

Overheal wrote: »

gunned downed people for aiding the wounded,

I'm sure this has happened under her watch, but again, what influence the Secretary of State has on military attack decision-making is unclear.

Overheal wrote: »

irradiated half of Iraq,

The bulk of depleted uranium used in Iraq dates back to 2003, poor to Hillary holding office.

Overheal wrote: »

mutated a generation of children,

see above.

Overheal wrote: »

suspended habeus corpus,

She voted yes on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees in 2006.

Overheal wrote: »

turned Guantanamo bay into a recruitment brochure,

That would be GW Bush. The Obama administration emptied as many detainees out of Gitmo as they could, and had no policy position to continue holding detainees.

Overheal wrote: »

and she herself authorized the used of enhanced interrogation techniques. Should I continue?

No she didn't. She only was in a position to authorise anything under the Obama administration, which had banned enhanced interrogation from day 1, so she could do no such thing. She has opposed enhanced interrogation from 2007.
http://www.politico.com/story/2007/09/clinton-backs-off-support-for-torture-006050

Overheal

I think you misunderstood Al - I was referring to Condeleeza Rice.

alastair

Overheal wrote: »

I think you misunderstood Al - I was referring to Condeleeza Rice.

Ah. I didn't get that at all.

Skylinehead

Alastair, I think you're getting Condoleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton mixed up there

Overheal was referring to Rice.

EDIT: Already covered

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

The ONLY point you can pin on Clinton are Russian relations as she was chief diplomat. The rest were far beyond her remit as Secretary of state.

You think the secretary of state decides on drone strikes? It's bizarre.

She didn't step down in protest when under obama the double tap strikes really took off.

Obama changed his mind on Libya due to Hillary Clinton, he thought she had her coalition of fools and that they would stay the distance with Libya in particular the French and British.
So the red line was crossed in Syria he did nothing which Hillary criticised him for.

She signed off on the $29 billion plus arms deal with Saudi Arabia for their war against Yemen.

She backed the Muslim Brotherhood who support Hamas.

She supports the FSA who are terrorists and anti-western/anti-any religion that is not Sunni Islam.

She backed a coup against a democratically elected leader in Honduras.

She was laughed at Gaddafi's murder, then left the country to rot.

She wanted to bomb Assad out of power as she spoke about it, until the Russians reset the situation by blocking it.

She has only being effective in making things worse.

RobertKK

Skylinehead wrote: »

Alastair, I think you're getting Condoleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton mixed up there

Overheal was referring to Rice.

EDIT: Already covered

Colin Powell, not Rice.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton considers about a quarter of Americans as deplorables, racistis, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, and irredeemable. Now it comes out she considers much of America’s youth as basement dwellers with a attachment to free stuff with grabby ways. At this rate by election day she might consider only about 10% of America worthy of having her as our leader. The rest... Well, let them eat cake. And the media will continue to tout her as the Third Coming (Barack Obama was the Second Coming, you know).

She didn't refer to anyone as basement dwellers. You'd know that if you read the original report on the matter instead of reading whatever messed up version of the story Breitbart are publishing.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

She didn't refer to anyone as basement dwellers. You'd know that if you read the original report on the matter instead of reading whatever messed up version of the story Breitbart are publishing.

Oh Trump's supporters know, but they hope others don't.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State proposed to murder Julian Assange with a drone strike.
She said "Can't we just drone this guy?", people at the State department laughed thinking she was not serious but she went on saying Assange was a relatively soft target "walking around" freely anand thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

What a lovely person Hillary is, murder her adversaries...

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary Clinton when Secretary of State proposed to murder Julian Assange with a drone strike.
She said "Can't we just drone this guy?", people at the State department laughed thinking she was not serious but she went on saying Assange was a relatively soft target "walking around" freely anand thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

What a lovely person Hillary is, murder her adversaries...

Even the picture says she said it sarcastically. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred to think that's serious.

Quin_Dub

RobertKK wrote: »

The KKK prefer Hillary 'Goldwater girl' Clinton.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

Already de-bunked earlier in this thread..

From here

The Clinton campaign strongly denies receiving any donations from the Ku Klux Klan and rejects the organization’s endorsement. “This is completely false,” Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin told Vocativ. “We want no part of them or their money and vehemently reject their hateful agenda.”

It’s possible for the Klan to have donated the money without the Clinton campaign knowing —Federal Election Commission rules allow for small anonymous donations. And members of the Klan wouldn’t need to disclose their affiliation with the group if they did donate to Clinton’s campaign—only their names would appear on Clinton’s campaign finance filings.

According to Schwerin, the campaign has “not received anywhere close to $20,000 in anonymous donations in total, [so] it is impossible that they are telling the truth.” Vocativ independently verified this through FEC filings.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even the picture says she said it sarcastically. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred to think that's serious.

What picture?

Following Clinton’s alleged drone proposal, another controversial remedy was floated in the State Department to place a reward or bounty for Assange’s capture and extradition to the United States, sources said. Numbers were discussed in the realm of a $10 million bounty. A State Department source described that staff meeting as bizarre. One minute staffers were inquiring about the Secretary’s blue and black checkered knit sweater and the next minute, the room was discussing the legalities of a drone strike on Assange and financial bounties, sources said.
Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”
“Nonlegal strategies.” How did that phrasing make it into an official State Department email subject line dealing with solving Wikileaks and Assange? Why would the secretary of state and her inner circle be discussing any “nonlegal strategies” for anything whatsoever? Against anyone? Shouldn’t all the strategies discussed by the country’s top diplomat be strictly legal only? And is the email a smoking gun to confirm Clinton was actually serious about pursuing an obvious “nonlegal strategy” proposal to allegedly assassinate Assange? Numerous attempts were made to try and interview and decipher Slaughter’s choice of email wording, however, she could not be reached for comment. Insiders said Slaughter is keeping a “low profile” in Princeton, NJ until she is nominated for a position in Clinton’s cabinet if the Democrat is elected in November. Likewise, True Pundit attempted to contact Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan for their perspectives on this story. None commented on the record.

You should just accept that none of the main presidential candidates are nice people, then you will not be so tied to them.
I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

RobertKK

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Already de-bunked earlier in this thread..

From here

Because anonymously who would know?

Igotadose

Suryavarman wrote: »

Even the picture says she said it sarcastically. You have to be pretty blinded by hatred to think that's serious.

It's truepundit, still looking for HRC's invisible earpiece: http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Because anonymously who would know?

The FEC.

RobertKK wrote: »

What picture?



You should just accept that none of the main presidential candidates are nice people, then you will not be so tied to them.
I wonder if some of the emails contain stuff with Clinton wanting to murder civilians...

The source is TruePundit, the same website that tried to start a conspiracy theory about her having an earpiece in a town hall session.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

The people behind the site are also running a $1m bounty for her medical records.

Hardly seems like above board journalism, either in the ethics or objectivity senses.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

The KKK prefer Hillary 'Goldwater girl' Clinton.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/

And that claim has never been proven and is not considered to be credible...
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

The FEC.

The source is TruePundit, the same website that tried to start a conspiracy theory about her having an earpiece in a town hall session.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-now-reporting-anonymously-sourced-theory-about-clintons-earpiece/

The people behind the site are also running a $1m bounty for her medical records.

Hardly seems like above board journalism, either in the ethics or objectivity senses.

Given Wikileaks are having a big event tomorrow about Clinton and her emails.
This suggests Wikileaks may have posted that on twitter as an appetiser, and maybe the whole cancelling the event on the balcony to reveal the information for security reasons, is down to emails about Hillary Clinton wanting to murder him?
Given it is a state email in that piece, maybe it reached them via Wikileaks...

RobertKK

B_Wayne wrote: »

And that claim has never been proven and is not considered to be credible...
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Given Wikileaks are having a big event tomorrow about Clinton and her emails.

Which they canceled, citing security concerns, but at the moment just smells like "just kidding we had nothing"

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Which they canceled, citing security concerns, but at the moment just smells like "just kidding we had nothing"

He is doing it via video inside the embassy instead.

B_Wayne

RobertKK wrote: »

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

Eh, the vast majority of stuff in relation to Donald Trump is backed up. You posted it as fact, it's nothing close to fact.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

But we can accept if it was associated with Trump it would be credible.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-29/trump-declines-to-immediately-reject-former-kkkk-leader/7206790

https://twitter.com/astaroska/status/703667646366097409

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/690562515500032000

http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-star-tweet-appeared-on-a-white-supremacist-site/385381121/

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-29/trump-declines-to-immediately-reject-former-kkkk-leader/7206790

https://twitter.com/astaroska/status/703667646366097409

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/690562515500032000

http://www.startribune.com/trump-s-star-tweet-appeared-on-a-white-supremacist-site/385381121/

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

He is doing it via video inside the embassy instead.

You think he’s afraid of the ‘Arkansas Flu?’

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

I accept your apology :rolleyes:

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

Doesn't matter, I have said both are not nice people.
I worry for those who think Clinton is the nice person in the election.

I feel like you are missing the scale. Clinton has a few shady emails and her speeches. She also has a history of going to war too quickly.

Trump has been openly racist, sexist and has a homophobic VP candidate as well as having stated he wants to bomb the **** out of the middle east. He also has his taxes (remember the complaints about Obama and Romney not paying enough...), his conspiracy theories about birth certificates and the Chinese making up global warming. His proposed budget is hilariously unworkable. He is too easily manipulated via his ego. pretty sure I am forgetting stuff here.

Sure Clinton is not my number 1 pick for the presidency bur in terms of not being a nice person she is simply not in the same league as Trump with the added bonus that she has a clue as to what goes on in the world.

Suryavarman

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

She didn't step down in protest when under obama the double tap strikes really took off.

So that's your justification? She didn't step down. Earlier in the thread you implied she was directly responsible. She wasn't responsible in any way for drone strikes.

Obama changed his mind on Libya due to Hillary Clinton, he thought she had her coalition of fools and that they would stay the distance with Libya in particular the French and British.
So the red line was crossed in Syria he did nothing which Hillary criticised him for.

She signed off on the $29 billion plus arms deal with Saudi Arabia for their war against Yemen.

She backed the Muslim Brotherhood who support Hamas.

She supports the FSA who are terrorists and anti-western/anti-any religion that is not Sunni Islam.

She backed a coup against a democratically elected leader in Honduras.

She was laughed at Gaddafi's murder, then left the country to rot.

She wanted to bomb Assad out of power as she spoke about it, until the Russians reset the situation by blocking it.

She has only being effective in making things worse.

She laughed at Gaddafi dying, the only fact you've listed.

It's ok though. You hate her and are willing to pin every foreign policy mistake on her, that's fine.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

What? Surely you're not telling me Genius Donald J Trump didn't know the law?

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

So as we all knew already Crooked Trump's charity foundation has been breaking the law. Now the New York Attorney General has ordered the foundation to stop all fundraising.

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Big news, I guess... because it's bad for Trump. Funny though that no one is talking about the reports of criminal investigations into the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2016/08/21/Jack-Kelly-Clinton-not-in-the-clear/stories/201608210074

Funny that no one is talking about it, except they are and here's a link to a news story? So the media is simultaneously reporting and ignoring it?