Gary M Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/09/13/martin-shkreli-apologizes-for-facebook-post-about-hillary-clinton/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_shkreli616pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.487278c2ab8b What is it with these Democrat guys that hate strong women? Hope he enjoys his 20 years, filth. Hillary really went up against an irrational fog of hate fixed it. https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2015/12/before-arrest-hated-ceo-martin-shkreli-gave-generously-to-democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 fixed it. https://mediaequalizer.com/brian-maloney/2015/12/before-arrest-hated-ceo-martin-shkreli-gave-generously-to-democrats Fake news!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 And darn, if she won we wouldn't have all this Russia stuff. Sarah Huckabee Sander's is slandering and abusing the power of the execuctive branch by threatening James Comey with prosecution for a fake crime. When will this insanity end? Jared Kushner, we just learned, was possibly using his position to get funding from the Russians to bail out his 666 New York building, while we learn that Flynn's son is also a target of Mueller's investigation. Don't you guys wish Hillary had won so you won't have to watch this criminal investigation play out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 On authoritarianism, Hillary Clinton was the greater threat. This was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. Hillary Clinton’s bizarre push to blame the media: What planet is she living on? by S. E. Cupp Original Article Benghazi victim´s mother slams Clinton for calling attack fallout ´political´ by Brooke Singman Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 (edited) The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result "This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. Part of that is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: the Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbersof innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims." (snip) Clinton was uniquely ill-suited to channel this widespread sentiment given that she has vocally supported almost every proposed U.S. war and military intervention over the last 20 years (including ones Obama rejected in places such as Syria and Ukraine and, of course, Iraq). For that reason, she was one of the leading symbols of war and militarism, perhaps its most potent one, and Trump — however deceitful and cynical it might have been — positioned himself as her opposite. From these premises, the authors argue that had the U.S. fought fewer wars, or at least experienced fewer casualties, Clinton would have won those three states and thus won the election: Edited September 14, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result "This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. Part of that is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: the Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbersof innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims." (snip) Clinton was uniquely ill-suited to channel this widespread sentiment given that she has vocally supported almost every proposed U.S. war and military intervention over the last 20 years (including ones Obama rejected in places such as Syria and Ukraine and, of course, Iraq). For that reason, she was one of the leading symbols of war and militarism, perhaps its most potent one, and Trump — however deceitful and cynical it might have been — positioned himself as her opposite. From these premises, the authors argue that had the U.S. fought fewer wars, or at least experienced fewer casualties, Clinton would have won those three states and thus won the election: Gaza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 The Clinton Book Tour Is Largely Ignoring the Vital Role of Endless War in the 2016 Election Result "This is not so much a critique of Klein’s specific interview (which, again, is worthwhile) as it is reflective of the broader Democratic Party desire to pretend that the foreign wars it has repeatedly prosecuted, and the endless killing of innocent people for which it is responsible, do not exist. Part of that is the discomfort of cognitive dissonance: the Democratic branding and self-glorification as enemies of privilege, racism, and violence are directly in conflict with the party’s long-standing eagerness to ignore, or even actively support, policies which kill large numbersof innocent people from Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia to Yemen, Iraq, and Gaza, but which receive scant attention because of the nationality, ethnicity, poverty, distance, and general invisibility of their victims." (snip) Clinton was uniquely ill-suited to channel this widespread sentiment given that she has vocally supported almost every proposed U.S. war and military intervention over the last 20 years (including ones Obama rejected in places such as Syria and Ukraine and, of course, Iraq). For that reason, she was one of the leading symbols of war and militarism, perhaps its most potent one, and Trump — however deceitful and cynical it might have been — positioned himself as her opposite. From these premises, the authors argue that had the U.S. fought fewer wars, or at least experienced fewer casualties, Clinton would have won those three states and thus won the election: How would the bi-partisan "wars" abroad affect the election of just the Dems? On authoritarianism, Hillary Clinton was the greater threat. This was obvious to anyone who was paying attention. Hillary Clinton’s bizarre push to blame the media: What planet is she living on? by S. E. Cupp Original Article Benghazi victim´s mother slams Clinton for calling attack fallout ´political´by Brooke Singman Original Article What did the hyper-partisan Benghazi investigation actually turn up? A nothing-burger, hold the mustard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 How would the bi-partisan "wars" abroad affect the election of just the Dems? It didn't. See: Jeb. Gaza? He's referencing Protective Edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 It didn't. See: Jeb. He's referencing Protective Edge. You mean the one where Hamas was building tunnels into Israel? Yeah let's just stand by and watch what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 You mean the one where Hamas was building tunnels into Israel? Yeah let's just stand by and watch what happens. I'm not defending his point, just clarifying for you: 1,400+ civilians died in the fighting, including over 500 children. You may agree it was an operation worth pursuing, The Intercept has been critical of that operation since it went down - hence its inclusion in the list of areas of conflict the west largely ignores due to cognitive dissonance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 I'm not defending his point, just clarifying for you: 1,400+ civilians died in the fighting, including over 500 children. You may agree it was an operation worth pursuing, The Intercept has been critical of that operation since it went down - hence its inclusion in the list of areas of conflict the west largely ignores due to cognitive dissonance. Yes because the intercept is an uninformed rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Yes because the intercept is an uninformed rag. Disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Fake news!! Please elaborate!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 She really is an entitled dumbass. I look forward to Hillary 2020. Assuming she can still walk. FDR couldn't walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted September 14, 2017 Share Posted September 14, 2017 anything lately from the anti-Hillary content farmers in Macedonia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 FDR couldn't walk. True. He also didn't pretend that he could walk while secret service agents helped him wobble up a flight of stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 True. He also didn't pretend that he could walk while secret service agents helped him wobble up a flight of stairs. But FDR had a mistress...............so Hillary does have that in common with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts