Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[buttslinger]

I would say the elephant in the room is that the core republican voter is a wounded animal right now, and has been for over eight years.
Beneath all the crazy cheering at Trump Rallies, you can almost feel the crazy fear and uncertainty.
They are in total fight/flight hysteria.
For them this isn't the future of the USA, it's about the future of their own FAMILY.
While most of the readers here see a tranny orgy as a GOOD thing, Republican Mothers only know those big city bright lights done blinded and stole their little boy.

This is why in this last week you're seeing Clinton ads using Trump's own words against women. Gotta get Trump tweeting about wimmen agin!
Trump is wrong on everything. Policywize. It's a goddam shame that still means nothing to Republicans.

[zerrrr]

A couple of things. I cannot think of the mechanics by which many different media companies could control the fbi director. Or that outside of partisanship, they care what voter turnout is and their stories are geared towards ensuring maximum voter turnout. How does that profit them? Actually, who cares what their motives are...let's say you have them all figured out, in what manner could they accomplish what you said they did?

Pretty easy. You already know of Thiel's shitposting PAC but did you know Hillary has one as well?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...htmlstory.html

When Sanders supporters called for recounts the Internet screamed that the election was being stolen. Trump does it and everyone calls him crazy.

When polls come out showing Hillary with leads of 8+ points the pro-Trump polls and anti-Hillary stories start just like the past week.

The media learned after the 2000 election that elections can be very profitable. I remember during the primaries when Cruz was positioned as an establishment candidate when in reality he is a Tea Party guy. So the media plays the line of 'Cruz meets with Republican establishment leaders in Washington. Let's now go to a Trump rally where 10,000 people are waiting for him to speak.'

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...inton-campaign

Speaking at a Morgan Stanley investors’ conference in March, one of the commanders of the FIC, Leslie Moonves, the chief executive of CBS and a man whose 2015 compensation totaled $56.8m, had this to say about the Trump campaign. “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. The money’s rolling in and this is fun … this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

[broncofan]

Pretty easy! And all that was proof that the media forced the FBI director to say he was reopening the email investigation? This is why I asked what evidence you had that Comey was acting at the behest of any news organization.

People profit from situations all the time without causing them....this seems to be a theme in conspiracy thinking. Adherents think if someone profits from a situation, he must have brought it about. Sometimes it's true sometimes it's not. For instance, when a plane goes missing, CNN's ratings might go up. Would you seriously consider this evidence that CNN disappeared the plane?

I won't even get into the claim that Trump was merely asking for a recount of closely contested jurisdictions....he was accusing the system of being rigged before a single ballot had been cast.

[buttslinger]

I just heard on CNN that there is a leaked FBI report that white males named Donald Trump have been being murdered since last Friday.
They're not sure whether to warn the public, or to substantiate stories of a suspicious looking cyborg leaving the scene,...or just not comment on the whole thing.

[zerrrr]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.

For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

[Stavros]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.

When Hillary wins she is going to have a hard time uniting the country and repairing our destroyed foreign policy.
For all of the crying over China building military bases in the Pacific our friends are now moving closer to China due to the rhetoric displayed in this election. Malaysia has joined the Philippines in moving closer to China. That effectively shuts our door in SE Asia.

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

[hippifried]

Dollars to donuts says all this hoopla is just some Weiner weiner pics sent to Huma at work.

[zerrrr]

The FBI director is just doing his job. He has a job to do regardless of the political calendar. The media will spin it multiple ways.
--The view of Harry Reid that the FBI has violated the Hatch Act calls this into question.

--I think the US has been divided for a very long time, how one describes the divisions is not easy as they are regional, ethnic, religious, etc -aspects of the US embedded since the first settlers arrived. I think the most serious cleavage might relate to differing views on how much power the Federal government has and should have, because this also relates to 'states rights' and the claim that 'Washington DC' is out of touch with ordinary citizens, a claim that was made by Nixon when he was running for the White House in 1968.

As for foreign policy, is it destroyed?
A major loss of confidence took place as a consequence of regime change in Iraq, most notably within the USA itself. The fact that the US and the UK bombed the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 was lauded at the time, yet the Taliban continue to be a major player in Afghan and Pakistan politics, and the Middle East has not benefited from the assumption made by the Bush Presidency that regime change in Iraq would become part of a trend toward democratisation in the region. But if the policy was flawed from the start, and I think it was, it was inevitable that good intentions would lead to bad results, and people as well as Presidencies don't like bad results.
The so-called resolution to the conflict in Iraq endorsed a Shi'a dominated government led by Nouri al-Maliki that reneged on a key element of the agreement with the Bush Presidency and deliberately shut out Sunni Arabs from government and the army. It happened because the US was desperate to find a way out of Iraq, yet Trump blames Obama and Mrs Clinton for the resulting mess. This is an example of how a Republican strategy failed on the battlefield and in diplomacy, yet the Democrats have shown a different way of dealing with foreign policy issues.

Consider the differences-even with the bombing of Serbia the Clinton Presidency was able to bring the parties to the Yugoslav conflict to Ohio -including the Serbs- to negotiate a peace that ended that war, and Milosovic was later sent for trial to The Hague. The Clinton Presidency through the work of George Mitchell was instrumental in bringing together the conflicting parties in Northern Ireland to conclude the Good Friday Peace Agreement, and Clinton came in at a later stage to bring Israel and the PLO to sign a peace treaty in 1993.

The evidence suggests that the US can use military force, but that when supported with equally aggressive diplomacy it can secure a result that lasts; or that diplomacy used to its full advantage can produce results without military engagement.

Although Mrs Clinton is portrayed as being more prone to military action than Barack Obama, the Obama Presidency in effect, heard what the US public was saying and that it did not want to see its service personnel sacrificed overseas in unwinnable wars. And while Trump might describe the negotiations with Iran as 'the worst deal in history' or whatever meaningless words he used, how else is Iran to be brought back into the world of diplomacy when all the military analysts have said a military conflict would not be desirable or achieve its objectives? And was the agreement with Iran so bad? Only Trump and some extremists think so, but they have had Iran on their target list for their own reasons for a long time.

As for the Philippines and Malaysia, they are looking at how they can extract the best deal from China and so far it is all about money, such as the agreement between China and the Philippines to allow more fishermen into Scarborough Shoal. The longer term questions for all in the region are -Can the Chinese be trusted not to expand their military presence in the Pacific but with what ambitions? And, related to that, can the Chinese be trusted partners over the long term, compared to the US?

As for the US, it retains a strong military presence with security guarantees in both Japan and South Korea and the Philippines needs to ask if the US really needs it, rather than the other way round.

Quoting Harry Reid is like quoting a con man. One of the most corrupt and disliked Democrats in the Senate by his own party.

In terms of Iraq, a complete failure. The government is laughably weak and long-term our military is looking to move closer to Iran than Saudi Arabia since the young Saudi's are more radical in nature. Your quoting Bush but ignoring Obama's eight years of failure in the region.

Remember the change in governments across North Africa that was supposed to bring in a wave of democracy and peace? How has that worked? It hasn't except to create more chaos. Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are still in conflict.

The diplomacy of the last eight years has not worked. Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

In terms of Asia, they are moving closer to China because they look at the election rhetoric with disdain and realize their future is with the Chinese who are not talking about war and starting conflicts around the world.

Can you trust the US? Asia does not think so. Americans think they can but that is an American line of thinking being pressed onto Asia rather than looking at it from an Asian point of view. They see the Americans as warlike wanting conflicts around the world. That is the problem with America; we think in terms of ourselves and how others should see us rather than emphasizing with the other countries.

If you think just electing Hillary is going to solve our foreign policy problems you are mistaken. There is a lot of work to be done to repair damage caused by more than a decade of failure.

[broncofan]

Neither has the diplomacy of Bush when he went into Iraq.

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

[zerrrr]

Please tell me you don't think Bush going into Iraq was diplomacy by any definition.

The Republicans thought it was at the time. Every step since then has just dipped us further into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics that includes the last eight years.