Chaos2Frozen
Member
"When Mexico sends their people, they bring in drugs, they're rapists.... And some are good people!"
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
"When Mexico sends their people, they bring in drugs, they're rapists.... And some are good people!"
Bernie definitely would be - not sure about any Democrat. I think Biden probably wouldn't receive the level of ire.
Macho Madness
Member
Americans were not against the war as it began. The Bush administration lied, big time. It was a massive mistake. But to look back now and say it was a mistake is easy. At the time, it was a very popular decision. Those against it were viewed as un-American. Take a look at the whole freedom fries shit. That was real. I look back on it completely disgusted but at the time it sounded like a good idea to most of us.
Tesseract
Banned
Hasn't the border patrol confirmed that at least 20% of illegal immigrants caught along the border are criminals?
Prodigal Son
Member
Americans were not against the war as it began. The Bush administration lied, big time. It was a massive mistake. But to look back now and say it was a mistake is easy. At the time, it was a very popular decision. Those against it were viewed as un-American. Take a look at the whole freedom fries shit. That was real. I look back on it completely disgusted but at the time it sounded like a good idea to most of us.
Which side are you arguing for? Everyone was presented with the same information. We can't condemn those who made the decision they did? Why? Because it was popular decision? I don't get it.
Our entire point is that we need someone who is principled enough to make decisions that are just and right, even if it isn't the popular decision.
I'm not trying to say this specific decision was particularly bad of Clinton (even though I think it was). I'm saying this is a bad way to argue in her defense.
exmachina64
Banned
Macho Madness
Member
I'm not trying to absolve the Iraq War vote of anything. I think it was a mistake. But saying "the rest of the world supported it" is irrelevant when discussing US politics. The attitude was much different then, and Bush pushed bad information that led to a lot of smart people to make bad decisions. I recall the attitude of the time was that only extreme radical lefties were seen as against the war, and they were viewed as anti-American. It was very toxic.
Americans were not against the war as it began. The Bush administration lied, big time. It was a massive mistake. But to look back now and say it was a mistake is easy. At the time, it was a very popular decision. Those against it were viewed as un-American. Take a look at the whole freedom fries shit. That was real. I look back on it completely disgusted but at the time it sounded like a good idea to most of us.
I'm trying not to come off as too rude, but it could well be because many American's are simply more easily mislead or manipulated, or have less of a moral compass than those from certain other developed nations to begin with. The same war and fearmongering arguments, evidence and propaganda was fed to us Brits here in UK too, but the overwhelming majority were still against the war. Maybe it's unfair to compare as we didn't suffer anything close to 9/11 (even though that incident was in-itself completely unrelated to Iraq), but I do feel America and American's are generally more gun ho and reckless, and far too patriotic too.
The entire point is that America needs to start looking to those who show better judgement in such matters, and don't just keel over to propaganda and false evidence. Your leaders need to be more intelligent than that, and show better foresight too. After all, these are the sorts of decisions that cost trillions of dollars in tax payer money, and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, both Iraqi and American.
Prodigal Son
Member
I respect your position here a lot, but, in my view, someone should be willing to be against interventionism of that sort even if it means being considered anti-American. Sanders' vote here means a lot to me and many others. To me it shows good judgement.
I can't say if she'd offer, but he'd never accept the position.
+1
TheMortarion
Member
Would Hilary take Bernie as her VP? That would certainly be a pleasing compromise for most Dems I would assume.
Orthogonal
Member
Pleasing for dems, but doesnt do anything to help her in GE.
Candidates always have to move to center for GE to win an VP is one way to do it.
Macho Madness
Member
I think that's fair. It's definitely a blight on her record that should be viewed as a mistake. I completely understand not being forgiving of it.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Hillary Clinton was wrong about Iraq. Fortunately, she's humble enough to admit she made a terrible mistake. Obviously, foresight is an important thing for a politician to have, but I believe hindsight can be just as important. It's how we learn and better ourselves.
Rather than sticking to her guns like Bush, Cheney, McCain, and many others--who will either say we were right to invade or deflect criticism with accusations like "So you're okay with Saddam Hussein killing his own innocent people?"--she will flat out admit fault.
Politicians are human. They make mistakes. Even the great Bernie Sanders admitted he was wrong to take sides with the gun lobby in a 2005 bill that protected gun manufacturers and sellers from legal liability and has gone on to pledge co-sponsorship of a bill that allows for manufacturers to be held at fault. Just as with Clinton, his position changed with time (or due to political pressure).
Why rake any of them over the coals if they're not a constant source of mistakes, are genuinely sorry for the mistakes they've made, and show they've grown and learned from their errors?
Erm, Hilary has time and time again shown herself to be a hawk, and very poor in certain foreign affairs decisions and strategies, especially regarding the Middle East. Her position on the Iraq war is hardly her only foreign policy failing.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Even if all 20% of them are somehow rapists and drug dealers, it's still a racist statement to imply majority of Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists where good people are a minority.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
A lot of it was due to 9/11, I believe. It's kind of something you'd have to have experienced first hand. We went from feeling literally invincible to being naked and weak in the span of one morning. It shook us to our core.
Unfortunately, those in power used that momentary lapse of confidence and strength to ram through some of the most odious laws and regulations in the history of our country. They sold us the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and torture, all by looking us in our tear-filled, desperate, and trusting eyes and telling us "never again."
We sold our souls to feel whole again. We overreacted. And we're still digging ourselves out of the ditch we let ourselves be thrown into because of it.
Dude......dude. Did you even read what Trump said?
Shes not progressive, she will never be progressive no matter how much you tell yourself she is or how many links you supply. Progressives don't send kids off to fight wars!! HOW DO YOU FUCKING EXCUSE THAT!!! Jesus fucking Christ the cognitive dissonance with some people! You talk about the minorities that will be affected by a republican president but you give two fucking shits about sending them off to fight and die in bullshit fucking wars for corporations and do FUCKING NOTHING about veterans, who mostly come from low wealth.
It's a wrap homie. I hope your getting prepped to start having kids to send off to fight the brewing HOLY WAR taking place in the middle East. World War 3: Muslim vs. Jesus vs. Climate Change is set, Hillary Clinton is the motherfucking Don King of this global calamity. You see, America is becoming a caste system, except the poors own a billion guns and the rich own the army and police. At some point equality will be taken, as it always has in the past. I'm not pro gun but you can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle. It's kinda scary watching dumbfuck Joe Blow with an IQ of 90 getting turned into a stormtrooper, then again if you subscribe to the rule that if you can't beat them, join them*, then we are all fucked, so like I said, it's a wrap.
* This is hereby known as the Durant-Aldridge Rule.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
She's a hawk compared to who? Sanders? Anybody would be. He's damn near an isolationist, which is an absurdly unrealistic stance to take in the modern world.
And to claim her foreign affairs policies are lacking seems odd, considering you don't mention (again) who you're comparing her policies to or which specific policies you're addressing. If you're comparing her to Sanders, I think you may want to reconsider the use of the word "lacking," since he's shown almost zero interest in foreign policy discussions of any kind.
manfestival
Member
They are the exact same person. Trump and hillary are like best friends down the street except trump always ate the cherry ice cream. If you support hillary then its practically a vote for trump. It is science and math. Therefore its right.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Youth has got to be smart here. If Bernie doesn't win the nomination, you must still come out to vote for Hilary, regardless if she's not ideal. The alternative becoming president would be a disaster in terms of setting back even incremental progress another decade or more.
So they all get a "My Bad, sorry about Isis, We ain't gonna do shit to George Bush for lying either" pass?
/pleaseclap for Jeb!
.... Come On!!!!!
Don't claim his stance is unrealistic when nobody has even given it a chance. It may be the exact thing that is needed, especially when the actions of hawks (to varying degree's) like Bush, Hilary and Obama have left us with byproducts like Iraq, ISIS and so on. I mean, these are some of the same politicians that think proxy supporting uneducated, angry, unstable Islamist rebels over an initially majority supported and ruling Assad, was somehow going to lead to something other than a new faction of crazy terrorists (e.g. ISIS), or who think drone bombing indiscriminately is actually a sensible way to minimise terrorism etc.
It MAY be the thing that's needed? What the fuck?
Bernie doesn't have a clue at how the world works he has his head stuck up his ass and refuses to brush up on foreign policy outside of his anti Iraq war stance.
The USA is for better or worse the world police, and no amount of wishing it wasn't the case is going to change that reality. No one says get involved everywhere but the rest of the world always calls us when shit goes wrong.
RageWaffles
Member
and the US's interventionism seems to only make things worse, so maybe we should try not doing that for once.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Like pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh wait, that made things worse.
Obviously we should've never been there. But we were. So we are.
IrishNinja
Member
damn, excellent post right here, wasn't aware of much of that
also not sure why tabris' member title was changed a while back...shame, that
RageWaffles
Member
but what about if we stopped getting involved in shit like that? and then we wouldn't have to worry about what happens when we leave.
I can't fathom the volume that drone bombing will escalate too under Clinton. At least for Trump, he might not like the cost?
Silent Death, humanity's most destructive war time technological advancement, if practiced indefinitely henceforth will become America's greatest shame, much greater then slavery.
What absolute nonsense. You're essentially proposing to continuously promote policies which for decades and decades have not only led to repeated failures, but the birth of future failures. The US is is either directly or indirectly responsible for the Shah overthrowing the original government in Iran, for much of the terrorist training in Afghanistan (in the hopes it'd be used against the Russian's), for putting Saddam in power and arming him with WMD's, for Israel being able to continuously get away with so many of the atrocities it has, for ISIS to be allowed to grow and so on and so on. It is absolutely ludicrous to support foreign policy that essentially adopts this same maniacal, reckless and immoral precedence. It is time for the US to stop being a violent and aggressive foreign military world police, as it has time and time again led to nothing more than further instability and turmoil, at the cost of trillions of tax payer dollars, at the glee of the military industrial complex and corporations.
Bernie not only has a clue, but it is my personal opinion that his foreign policy is the only sensible policy presently being offered. One that is less hawkish and aggressive, and instead relies on foreign parties to take more of a charge in their own regions and affairs, providing more of a tertiary support role only.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
We should if us leaving creates a power vacuum that gets filled with terrorists and others out to destroy us, our allies, and any other soft civilian targets they can get close enough to blow up.
We created a monster by invading. It is the utmost in irresponsible behavior and outright dickery to now dust our hands off and say "Welp, sorry world. Our bad. You got this though, right?"
What the fuck?
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Give me a break with this horse shit.
Of the two, Trump is the only one calling for bombing ISIS, taking their oil, blowing up innocent people transporting that oil, and bombing the innocent families of possible terrorists. You piss and moan about progressives not wanting war while spouting nonsense and wishful thinking about how a xenophobic hate-monger is going to suddenly pull back from his oft-repeated brags about turning the Middle East into glass?
Horse shit.
What's the end game with that role, world domination? If you are not in it to win it then why fucking play?
It's high time that ends, for the sake of our citizens and not theirs. There are other ways to help then destabilization and exploitation. Embracing Shock Doctrine is a Democratic platform now?
RageWaffles
Member
you seem to be ignoring that what I'm saying is we shouldn't get involved in needless and interventionist conflicts in the first place. I'm saying that, in part, because no one (other than military contractors) gains anything from it and because we make things worse not matter what we do. Even if there was still a large US military presence there, that wouldn't make it okay that we went there in the first place.
I'm not okay with how unstable we left those countries after doing our own part to fuck them over, but if we weren't so bomb-happy to begin with then we wouldn't have to ever worry about that.
I'm not saying he wouldn't, I'm saying the only thing that might deture him could be the cost. Obviously the irony goes over your head, my bad.
(He is a businessman.... ) <----- sarcasm, FYI. Are you in too deep? I would suggest a Medical Weed Rec.
eBay Huckster
Member
Your choices for a "might not like the cost" election are a Senator from Kentucky who suspended his campaign a month ago and a Senator from Vermont who is approximately 24 hours from being buried in the delegate math. Donald Trump may well ironically be the candidate with the most abhorrent foreign policy platform.
And from the looks of things, not abnormally good at it.
Nooooo.....you did not just use the he's a businessman line. Nooooo.
We're in the same boat buddy, glad to see you resolved. Clinton should probably keep talking about evil Iran then, gotta look pro military come GE.
eBay Huckster
Member
We're talking about the same Iran where her policy statements and actions post-2008 are pretty firmly in the "intervention as a last resort" camp, right?
I don't like Clinton. I haven't for many years, ever since she spoke with Jack Thompson in front of a crowd complaining about video game violence. Made me think she doesn't really want these things, she just is told people think something and goes with it until she doesn't. Pandering to an audience to get votes. The more I pay attention to her, the more I see this.
Despite this, if she's the candidate I'm gonna have to vote for her. The lesser of two evils. My cousin is a huge Bernie supporter, but even he knows he's gonna have to vote Clinton.
I'm more worried about middle America deciding not to vote.
Despite this, if she's the candidate I'm gonna have to vote for her. The lesser of two evils. My cousin is a huge Bernie supporter, but even he knows he's gonna have to vote Clinton.
I'm more worried about middle America deciding not to vote.
Randomizer
Member
So people should sell out their ideals and vote for someone who is everything they are against just to keep the bogeyman out? It's hilarious how two sided US politics really are. If I lived in the US I would never vote for Clinton based on her foreign policy record alone. Drones, Libya, Syria and she even voted for the Iraq war FFS! She is a warmonger and proud member of the military industrial complex. As for her domestic policy I couldn't give two shits, the above is reason enough for me to label her an awful, evil person and contributor to the deaths of innocents and the destabilising of countries that won't play ball with western style oligarchic capitalism.
So who would you vote for, if Bernie was out of the race?
It is also the main reason terrorists target and hate the US in the first place, including Bin Laden at the time, by his own admissions. Contrary to what US politicians and media feed people, and as backed up by numerous studies and findings, terrorists don't revile or target America because they hate its 'freedoms', they do so as repercussion to its foreign policy and interventions. They are unhinged psycho's who take their protestations to the immoral extremes. This entire cycle is, and always has been politically or economically, not religiously motivated, yet so many are so painfully blind to it.
I agree, it needs to end. This viscous cycle cannot be allowed to continue, for the sake of all citzens.
Well, she's the one who's been listing them as prime enamies of hers during the debates. But against Trump in the GE, she's gotta look strong or he will steal the show, theatrically. The primary desensitized the public to his shit, much like mass shootings, no one is gonna look up when he calls her a lying liar who lies for 20 minutes during a debate.
Donald Trump is a bully who don't give two fucks about the shit stain on the top of his head.
Endorsements are lining up, if the repubs can put up a front and placate to Trump in hopes they can sell their unsupportive base that they can control him, it's gonna get crazy! Poor girl, if Trump wins he's never gonna let her forget... =( guys are such dicks.
Donald Trump is a bully who don't give two fucks about the shit stain on the top of his head.
Endorsements are lining up, if the repubs can put up a front and placate to Trump in hopes they can sell their unsupportive base that they can control him, it's gonna get crazy! Poor girl, if Trump wins he's never gonna let her forget... =( guys are such dicks.
Randomizer
Member
Jill Stein, some other true left wing alternative or not vote. Bernie is a good thing for the US but even if he was elected I couldn't see him having too much affect on foreign policy, to be honest I can't see anyone having that much of a positive impact on it. Whereas Clinton and the Republicans will most likely have a negative affect on it. Sorry but I'm never going to vote for a one murdering sack of shit over another.
I agree, although our military is largely run by men with strong Christian beliefs.
BlackClouds
Member
It's oligarchy politics. Every president since JFK has given something big that the Oligarchs wanted. A president Sanders wouldn't change this. TPP had laughable opposition to the point I'm thinking it was possibly controlled opposition. Look at the incredibly weak arguments from Elizabeth Warren. Basically came down to TPP is bad because NAFTA was bad without specifics. That's dog sniffing politics. This allowed President Obama to easily lobby for it, and it was easy as pie (when it shouldn't have been). I suppose that's part of the Bernie Bros line of thinking, fairy tales about how the world works and how America is run. Lip service about oligarchy but none of the reality behind it.
It's dumb to make this point when the conversation is generally about Trump, Hillary and Bernie.
If you wanted to come across as remotely smart you needed to suggest a Republican candidate who is arguably ok.
- Status