2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe clip of Hillary laughing with a Repug about bombing Iran deserves its own thread.
If the "we came, we saw, he died" laugh line didn't make you sick, this clip below just might.
Even if Hillary comes to apologize for her crassness and callousness here, this clip proves that there is very little daylight indeed between her foreign policy position and that of the neocons.
merrily
(45,251 posts)No fucking way ever will I ever vote for such a callous person, nope.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #4)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And fear has triangulated us into the destruction of our democracy and endless war.
Good work fear, your work is appreciated by evil.
Response to zeemike (Reply #46)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)As it is presented to us on a daily basis.
As I said fear works and that is why it is used to herd us like sheep into war after war, and towed politicians who lead us there.
If we ever lost our fear and stood up like brave humans the PTB would tremble with fear of their own. Their control and power depends on us being afraid.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The fact is more democrats will not vote if Hillary selected. That's just the way it is. All the whining will not change the fact that most people will not be motivated and she could lose the White House for democrats whether you like it or not. She is no different than Joe Lieberman.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--that Sanders is attracting by the carload.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Half the population is already alienated. But the thing about Hillary is she has massive negative ratings. People simply don't trust her and many of them are active within the party. People are so sick of her self-entitlement and deceit. There is a reason Obama totally buried the once inevitable candidate. And believe me everyone remembers her passing around photos of Obama in a turban.
eridani
(51,907 posts)That means voting for the Dem over the Republican.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)The election won't be determined by the decides. It will be based on voter turnout. She will not motivate anyone but dedicated loyalists and there just isn't enough of them. Bernie energizes people to participate. Hillary turns them off. It's that simple. Those who vote will vote for any Democrat although a recent poll said 15% of democrats will never vote for her and don't trust her to act like a democrat once elected. It's the ones who don't show up to vote at all that may mean a President Trump or Cruz. If that happens expect parallels to Nazi Germany.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)I remember that and I didn't realize who was behind it. is about all I can say.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)I've been scared into submission by that argument before.... not anymore!
merrily
(45,251 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)in regards to what they're trying to speak about.
There's an old saying "it is better to keep your mouth shut and look like a fool- than to open it and remove all doubt"
Grasshopper just hasn't quite learned enough yet and appears to be a victim of my sig line.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Proserpina
(2,352 posts)I'll have to remember it.
Response to reformist2 (Reply #47)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
randys1
(16,286 posts)shoved with force back into the closet.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Clinton SC. If one of the three semi-sane pukes are the Republican nominee (Bush, Kasich, Rubio) there is way less difference on the issues that effect my everyday life than I can stand. Economic policy, International relations, social safety net, labor - they're all shades of neolib/neocon if you ask me. A sober analysis of candidates will have her winning out over the repubs for me, but not by nearly as much as you think.
merrily
(45,251 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)If the poster is meant the SCOTUS, a reply is easy. Not sure what this is about, though.
7962
(11,841 posts)I dont know how it CANT be SCOTUS.
But your answer is better
Response to merrily (Reply #80)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)problem. That it seems to have been for you says a lot. Now, to make the reply I did not want to waste time making, in case you meant something else/
The SCOTUS is no longer a no-fail shibboleth. We had New Democrat President Clinton appointing a corporatist like Breyer and New Democrat President Obama appointing Kagan and also considering nominating a Republican or, the next thing to a Republican, IMO, Cass Sunstein. (Breyer and Kagan both joined the Republicans in invalidating a portion of ACA, rather arbitrarily, IMO.)
http://www.salon.com/2010/03/26/court_3/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=863294.
On the other hand, two of the most liberal Justices in the entire history of the SCOTUS were Warren and Stevens, nominated by Eisenhower and Ford, respectively. Warren had made his national political bones as AG of California, implementing internment of the Japanese and, to a much lesser extent, Germans and Italians. Kennedy, nominated by Reagan, has a number of times crossed over to vote with the Justices nominated by Democrats, including in the gay rights/equal marriage cases. On those, he has seemed a lot less shaky than Kagan, who before Obama nominated her, had stated flat out that there was no constitutional right to equal marriage.
So, it appears New Democrats are not necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Justices likely to make liberal decisions and not even necessarily reliable when it comes to nominating Democratic Justices. On the other hand, it seems sitting on the SCOTUS bench can change Justices as it did Warren and Stevens. If New Democrats and DINOs want to keep using the SCOTUS to scare liberals into voting LOTE, they need to stop considering Republicans and corporatist DINOs as SCOTUS nominees.
However, no one is advocating electing a Republican President because you confused SOTU and SCOTUS or for any other reason. This is a primary. We are choosing between one Democrat or the other. And, when it comes to nominating a Justice likely to decide as I hope, New Democrats have proven unreliable. And that is another reason why Sanders, not Clinton, is my primary candidate. As discussed elsewhere, fewer Republicans, Indies and Democrats who flat out hate Sanders is another, as it portends a better shot in the general. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=878212
ETA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=853599 (SCOTUS POTUS).
bvar22
(39,909 posts)President Obama replaced the most Liberal member (and my favorite) Justice JP Stevens with a "moderate",
shifting the whole SC dynamic to The RIGHT.
merrily
(45,251 posts)better start nominating reliably leftist Justices.
It's pretty sad, too, when the biggest reason you can give for voting for a Democrat for President is that he or she MIGHT nominate a leftist Justice--assuming the opportunity even arises.
You should vote for Bernie. Don't let the Republicans have the White House.
Response to Loudestlib (Reply #65)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You appear to be heading in the wrong direction in the primary.
Response to merrily (Reply #130)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)head match up polls with each Republican candidate than Hillary has. So, there is no basis for choosing Hillary over Sanders in the primary on the assumption she will do better than he in the general. If anything, more Republicans, Indies and Democrats dislike her than dislike him, so I have always had a concern about her chances in the general. However, if any Democrat loses to the likes of Trump or Carson, it's time to re-assess.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)She had no path to winning with those states off the table.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Because if you don't want that, then I suggest you don't try to foist Hillary on us.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)Really. I have lived life and I've been through the worst and the best. Things happen exactly as they are supposed to happen. I fear nothing, I fear no one.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)You don't need no 'effin gun dare I guess?
Nothing to fear but fear itself as FDR once said!
I'm with you!
Autumn
(45,107 posts)a gun and fired one was 4 or 5 years ago. I have guns, I don't need them. If the government decided they want my guns they can have em. The guns are not as valuable to me as our Dewalt tools are. They can pry my Dewalts from my cold dead hands.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Autumn
(45,107 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)I am still afraid of falling off the roof,
and pygmy rattlesnakes that can hide in our Strawberries.
Autumn
(45,107 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)and if necessary, I will write in the candidate I SUPPORT!
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)in the G.E. You can do that everywhere else, but not on DU.
Perhaps you need to read what Skinner has said about that here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=8974
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)and I wrote in Jesse Jackson if I remember right.
Shame on me I guess.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)
I wasn't aware of this. You wanna ban me already do you?
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I'm being courteous and civil here. You should try to do the same.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)Seriously.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...excited about banning anyone they didn't like, and threatening to do so despite the fact that they don't run this site.
It turned out NOT to be the purge so hoped for by the Hillary crowd. In fact, it was the Hillary PUMAS who left in a huff, and started their OWN little site.... a lot like now.
I laughed.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)people who run this site. Apparently, some need to be reminded of it even though they've been a DUer since December 2004.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Keep telling yourself that.
It FAILED anyway.
I've been a member since 2001, not a 2004 newbie.
Believe me when I tell you I KNOW the TOS,
and still have some laughter at the ***** from 2008 who thought they could get people banned and turn DU into one BIG BOG.
Never Happened. Oh well, not everyone can get what they want for Christmas.
Good Luck with controlling DU, and getting people banned in 2016.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I wasn't referring to you with the membership date mentioned in my post. See, this is what happens when you inject yourself into a conversation without knowing the facts.
Keep telling yourself that.
I do because it's the truth despite whatever CTs are lurking at the back of your mind.
It FAILED anyway.
What failed?
Believe me when I tell you I KNOW the TOS,
Good. Because not many do since Skinner himself had to clarify exactly what those terms are because. Too many played fast and loose with its interpretation. But kudos and good for you that you don't need it!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)another nonsensical gumbo of half claims and misguided notions.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)In a conversation, ideas are exchanged, but no credible ideas have come from your side. Therefore, no conversation.
Stay in school.
Don't do drugs.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Perogie
(687 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)2. The poster simply said what he/she was going to do. He/She was not advocating that anyone else do it.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I've included in the post you're responding to, and what you apparently didn't read.
As a refresher:
2. Follow the thread, FE. You've missed the bigger story and the reason I called CAV out.
Up-thread, the CAV responded to merrily's post about Hillary Clinton with, "No fucking way ever will I ever vote for such a callous person, nope."
IHatetheGOP responded with, "So you would allow Bush, Cruz, Trump, or Rubio to be President and assure a stacked SOTU{sic}? REALLY?"
To which CAV responded with, "I know how to write and if necessary, I will write in the candidate I SUPPORT!"
Now, this conversation is based on the assumption that Hillary Clinton would win the primaries and would therefore be the Democratic Party nominee, and it's unclear who CAV would "write-in", but there's no doubt that CAV has claimed that he/she does not intend to vote for the Democratic Party nominee if that nominee is Hillary Clinton, and that's in violation of the ToS per Skinner's clarification.
So I repeat what Skinner wrote: here: "we have grounds to ban anyone who states that they do not intend to vote for the Democratic nominee in any general election."
I hope I've cleared that up for you.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I could use the same logic because Hillary has better chance at losing than Bernie. You should do what's right and ask that she drop out of the race by your own logic. So lame. I hate the GOP too and Hillary is way closer to them than Bernie.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)the misguided DNC is offering up flawed a candidate?
If you don't want a Republican President, then maybe your outrage should be directed at the DNC for foisting a neocon, warmongering, Wall-Street-connected, fracking proponent who has only 7 percent support of Independents, no Republican support and the disdain of 50 percent of the party--due to the aforementioned malarkey!
We're the victims, not the problem!
840high
(17,196 posts)nyabingi
(1,145 posts)a long time ago but it was this statement by Hillary that made me absolutely hate her.
She and her State Department worked to have Gaddafi killed and she's on TV laughing about it. This is behavior we expect to see from some Mafia boss, not someone who's trying to be president of this country.
For all of her foreign policy experience, what good is it when she's in favor of constant war, regime change, and destroying the lives of millions of people to achieve the objectives of some neocon think tank scum? Disgusting.
merrily
(45,251 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)You arent insulting someone when you use their own words to describe them
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)will have no hesitation smearing and attacking Bernie. She did the same too Obama (but it backfired on her).
merrily
(45,251 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)It would be next to impossible with repukes blocking everything. The country would not gain any ground toward becoming a better nation. It would be a simple straight line-nothing upwards in terms of progress.
nyabingi
(1,145 posts)The Clinton/Obama wing of the DP has pushed the Party so close to the conservative side that many of the policies Hillary would want to implement would be agreeable to many Republicans (who would put up token opposition of course for political purposes). The ACA was a Republican invention (most specifically, the Heritage Foundation) and it is something they technically should have been hailing as good, but have been trying to overturn simply because a Democrat passed it (it was OK when it was "Romneycare" .
Bernie is actually bringing more left-leaning issues back to the table, more in line with a true opposition party to the hard-right policies of today's Republican Party and more in line with pre-Clinton era Democratic policies.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)for a 2008 run. And now she has the blood of 1,000,000 innocent people dripping from her hands.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Both clips make me sick and extremely uncomfortable.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I don't relate to her at all. I think she has a very serious problem in her complete lack of respect and consideration that she gives towards people in other parts of the world.
She frightens me just as much as a neo-con on foreign policy and before jumping all over me for feeling this way people should reflect on the fact that Robert Kagan is very comfortable with her foreign policy initiatives and worldview. That should motivate just about all of us to seriously reconsider her candidacy I would hope. This is a big deal.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)If this is how she acts on camera, can you imagine what she is like when the cameras are off.
It's horrifying to even think about.
About Robert Kagan. He was a foreign-policy advisor to Hillary, while she was Secretary of State under Obama. She's a Democrat with 75 percent of her own party identifying as progressive/liberal. Yet, one of her closest foreign-policy advisors is the grandfather of the neocon movement.
She must have a real disdain for the base of her own party, because the base considers the neocons the arch enemy of everything the Democratic party stands for. And here she is--filling her inner circle with these war wolves.
It's a betrayal to all progressives/liberals and to those who are against perpetual war in the Middle East.
Hell, there's plenty of Republicans who don't agree with the neocons.
Just how far off the deep end have some in our party gone?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)she is worse than we can possibly imagine.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)"And then, frankly, there are those that are saying the best thing that could happen to us is to be attacked by somebody. You know, just bring it on." - Hillary Clinton
polly7
(20,582 posts)attacked by somebody? "You know, just bring it on". The trouble is, they're usually those countries with no defense to an attack by 'somebody' with the world's most well-funded and advanced military.
So hypocritical when she's for 'taking it to' so many millions who've suffered from atrocity after atrocity because of it, and are doing so to this day. Small children decapitated by bombs from above, losing limbs by cluster bombs she voted against the banning of, lying 'no-fly zones' she, in particular, pushed for - but it's all right when it's about regime-change, baby! 'Bragging ....... bring it on' is a sick joke really, when you think of what's been done to so many around the planet.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Take the profits out of war and they will end tomorrow.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)ESKD
(57 posts)working class.
Response to tecelote (Reply #8)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Our wars cost in innocent lives and taxes.
12 Years Stats...
Terrorism : 350
Gun Deaths: 400,000
Collateral Damage: We don't seem to count or care about the innocent lives lost in our wars and definitely don't report on it.
"Using numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we found that from 2001 to 2013, 406,496 people died by firearms on U.S. soil. (2013 is the most recent year CDC data for deaths by firearms is available.) This data covered all manners of death, including homicide, accident and suicide.
According to the U.S. State Department, the number of U.S. citizens killed overseas as a result of incidents of terrorism from 2001 to 2013 was 350."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence/
merrily
(45,251 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)we were not attacked by a nation state, so what do you think warring against another nation will accomplish?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Islam, seemingly defending groups that despise us more than anyone else.
It's because there are always voices on the right who seize any such discussion and twist it into a justification for war.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I firmly believe that. Terror begets terror.
left lowrider
(97 posts)Not only is she callous about the deaths of innocents abroad she sees the potential for dead American innocents as a positive step in a strategy to "allow" us to strike back.
disgusting
Who is voting for that person?
artislife
(9,497 posts)Reminds me of some cheerleaders I watched during a high school game. They rah rahed without understanding what was actually happening on the field. De-Fense De-Fense, while the offense was trying to make plays....
That's what it is like when I read some of team h responses.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)But there's also the ones who know damn well how awful their candidate is yet really don't care. They have a particular interest in that candidate and that's all that's necessary for their support, excuses, and ignorance - willful or otherwise.
Look. I'm no different. I know damn well Sanders is a lousy singer.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)There is NOTHING progressive,
about a callous indifference to life.
Those indifferent to the lives of others
and matters of war can NEVER be trusted.
Those who revel and find glee in
death and war are sociopaths.
Those are the MOST dangerous people in society.
They hide under a veneer of decency,
tell lies as easy as breathing, while their
inflated egos and unquenchable sense
of entitlement drives them to seek more
and more self-aggrandizement.
NO ONE who exhibits such pathology
should be considered fit for public office
and least of all Commander in Chief.
We don't want another neo-con president.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)about a callous indifference to life.
Those indifferent to the lives of others
and matters of war can NEVER be trusted.
Those who revel and find glee in
death and war are sociopaths.
Those are the MOST dangerous people in society.
They hide under a veneer of decency,
tell lies as easy as breathing, while their
inflated egos and unquenchable sense
of entitlement drives them to seek more
and more self-aggrandizement.
NO ONE who exhibits such pathology
should be considered fit for public office
and least of all Commander in Chief.
We don't want another neo-con president.
Got it
(59 posts)I'm a long time watcher here, fully cognizant that others are more capable of articulating a position. I know and accept my limitations and am certain I'm in good company.
That said, I couldn't let this slip. Your response is absolutely repulsive. I understand sarcasm, but seriously!! Anyone who feels this shines a positive light on Hillary should take a time out and do some serious soul searching.
It's absolutely disgusting. It's the quintessential Ugly American.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)Got it
(59 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)The disdain and ugliness displayed by some here often makes me wonder how miserable their lives must be in reality. To be so callous and ugly towards the people they interact with on a daily basis- sometimes what seems like all day, every day. I feel sorry for them. I truly do.
Welcome to DU
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Welcome to DU.
It really is the "quintessential Ugly American" -- and it is atypical for Democrats. There are millions of videos of both President Obama, who has the position she wants and Secretary Kerry, who has the position she had. I have watched both men for years and there is nothing with the tone of the Quaddafi related video or this one.
If she gets the nomination, as is likely, it will be the first time I will ever wished I were less informed and had seen less.
arikara
(5,562 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)But somehow it always still comes up Hillary
polly7
(20,582 posts)by an audience member.
merrily
(45,251 posts)navarth
(5,927 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)That type of attitude towards your fellow human beings by anyone was- and still is ugly.
Broward
(1,976 posts)but your post takes the cake.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)FarPoint
(12,409 posts)She will be our Democratic Presidential Nominee.... So, suck it up or just don't vote.
artislife
(9,497 posts)winning hearts and minds as an example.
heh
Response to FarPoint (Reply #12)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to bigwillq (Reply #7)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Please do not attempt to sell whatever it is that is causing your loyalty as maturity or pragmatism or concern for the SCOTUS. It has nothing to do with any of those things.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)with numerous posts blasting all of those naturally violent Muslims in all those places she starts new wars?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)What progressive democrat
would want to spend time
in a community that supports
neo-con politics and neo-liberal economics?
Basically, a 3rd-Way echo chamber.
What would we discuss????
What country to invade next...
or how austere we should live...
or how much to cut the social safety net...
or which public institution to privatize next?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)It could get ugly. DU could go full circle from opposing the neocons during Bush's reign to...
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Communities rise and fall everyday.
Moving forward would be relatively simple
and essentially painless... just change the URL
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Just promise to keep my socks clean
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)other on the backs.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Oh wait, it doesn't.
You do a disservice to your otherwise reputable candidate, Ms. Kitten.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Is there same as 2008 and 2004.
Anyone who quits in a snit won't even make a dent in DUers both already active and who join daily.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)And, it's not *quitting*.
It's moving on to more fertile grounds.
A community that seeks to silence
progressive voices that speak to the
needs and concerns of 99% of citizens
is decidedly not a *democratic underground*
When a brand has lost it's core values,
when it no longer serves it constituency,
it's become a shadow of it's former self.
Usually when friends or family reach
that point those that care enough
intervene for the benefit of their interest.
But then again, it's only business, right?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)rather than bent on, and financially invested in, promoting corporate interests rather than Democratic ones.
Our problems go far beyond Republicans, and this site is hell-bent on not looking past the partisan horse race. Sad to see.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)So few Hillary supporters yet so many posts. They sure seem to be doing their job.
This may be DU but I also see a whole lot more Bernie bumper stickers than Hillary everywhere I go.
It continues to confirm my belief that the corporate media and oligarchs are doing their best to convince us that Hillary is inevitable when Americans are really for Bernie.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Marty McGraw
(1,024 posts)To see all the New additions we have since then. Would be great to repost that poll Fresh. Bet we'd be even more shocked!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)in how she handled the situation. Yet lack the self-awareness to see they were shown what was coming.
CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)and I mean SICK! is wrong with her anyway?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)She had a rough childhood.
Her father was reportedly very abusive.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)According to snippets from both HRC's and WJC's books, her father was psychologically and physically abusive. Even one of HRC's strongest supporters discussed this in DU's Hillary Clinton group. http://www.democraticunderground.com/110713163
The brusque son of an English immigrant and a coal miners daughter in Scranton, Pa., Mr. Rodham, for most of his life, harbored prejudices against blacks, Catholics and anyone else not like him. He hurled biting sarcasm at his wife and only daughter and spanked, at times excessively, his three children to keep them in line, according to interviews with friends and a review of documents, Mrs. Clintons writings and former President Bill Clintons memoir."
http://t.co/LxfS5ft51H via NYTimes
Well, she was a kid and was stuck with her family. But come adulthood, she chose her partner.
The first time one's spouse cheats, it's a shame-on-the-cheater situation. One can choose to forgive and to try to save the marriage. But the second time? 3rd? 4th? and so on. Even when the adulterer is so reckless that the affairs get international publicity? It then becomes shame on the person who enables the serial adulterer by not only staying in the marriage, but by blaming the adulterer's partners. And not just blaming the women, but setting up & directing the Bimbo Eruption Squad to intimidate, threaten and otherwise shut them up.
Trading self respect for power & political positioning is not what one might call a "free trade" deal. There is a heavy psychological price to be paid for choosing to stay with a spouse who repeatedly and publicly betrays and humiliates you. That anger gets projected onto others in quite out-of-proportion ways. Witness HRC's admitted need for revenge, and the Clintons' enemies list. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/hillary-clinton-hit-list-102067
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/politics/diane-blair-hillary-clinton-documents/index.html
It's a tragedy - the 2 men in her life whom she should have been able to trust to protect and cherish her, failed to do so. I feel sorry for her, but not enough to vote for her.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)(NIMH stands for National Institute of Mental Health)
Metric System
(6,048 posts)mental health as a political pickaxe.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Yes, even when mental health professionals are allowed to offer our educated and informed opinions of various people and situations.
You know, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. do it here all the time. They are not dispensing professional advise or diagnosing over the internet, they are just sharing their opinions. They just happen to be more informed and educated in the expression thereof.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)My NIMH Fellowship was back in my grad school days - When I got to the ABD stage, I ended up switching to law school, but I found my psych training invaluable in so many ways - particularly in jury selection and witness preparation, as well as psyching out trial judges!
TM99
(8,352 posts)I got an MBA later on and have found my psychology training very applicable in the realm of business as well.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,876 posts)and a pile o'shyte to go w/it as well.
I dislike liars immensely btw.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)It is shameful and callous for anyone to laugh about war. It's totally disgraceful and unacceptable for both of them to behave in such a manner. We need more principled representatives.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)Hillary, in her own words.
It isn't attacking her, it is letting her public statements speak for themselves. I think most people will be repulsed by her actions and words in these clips.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Become ads if she wins, the gop may just grab them
merrily
(45,251 posts)Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Is keep on as we are...and hope others come to their senses before too late.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)Bring it on, war war is what she's pushing.
No way do I want her to have the ability to order our military into war!
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Shall NEVER EVER have my vote!
reddread
(6,896 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)after those belly laughs and what was said that evoked them I don't think I like this woman at all
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)OMG..........
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)and she was never 'in the loop' with the cheney-bush gang either.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The only female founding member of the DLC. Even accompanied From around Europe, trying to sell the DLC gospel there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026211673
And aided and abetted Bushco in selling the Iraq War to Americans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381
But, that kind laughter about war and killing may stand alone, that's true enough.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I support Mrs. Clinton and I believe she was snookered by the bush-cheney 'gang' too, about the Iraq war.
At that time, about 2006ish,2007ish ? Mrs. Clinton did call them out and speak up somewhat but no one knew the extent and depth of the bush lies except the very few in the close loop.
merrily
(45,251 posts)whatever for that. She took the same position as the DLC/PPI. Didn't even bother to read the NIE. However, if she was fooled by Bushco, of all people, even though other Democrats in Congress were not, that should give anyone pause about choosing her for CIC or anything else. No Democrat I know in real life was fooled.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Shes as equal to the others in that video who were smiling and laughing too.
Millions and millions of Americans were snookered by bush-cheney inner loop gang lies, including most all of our elected government.
Even Mrs. Clinton has said,(not exact quote) if I knew then what I know now she would have voted differently.
We have to move past that time, bush-cheney are immune by our laws.
The damage is done to America and continues to damage us as long as we continue to promote one tiny piece of time, one laugh.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hepburn
(21,054 posts)...stop trying to be one of the boys!
Sheeeeeeeeeesh!
BTW: I am a female in Hillary's age group.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Hopefully that will change over time because a lot of those men are 'good old boys' and America doesn't need or benefit from 'good old boys' elected Leaders.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)I think not. I was in a profession with those in power were predominately male, but no way did I have to try and be one of them. I learned long ago I was a Trial Attorney not a Female Trial Attorney.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)then why does she keep advertising her gender? She can't have it both ways, either she is competent as a person or competent as a woman.
Z
merrily
(45,251 posts)Certainly, not many Democratic males laugh heartily when discussing taking out a head of state or waging nuclear war. And I am certainly not voting for anyone who is pushing 70 on a baseless "hope" for an 180 degree change after all these decades of being either a Republican or a neocon Dem.
Let's try to be at least a little honest: This is about her lifelong political ideology, not her gender, and nothing indicates that she'd even like to change.
arikara
(5,562 posts)then she's not very bright. If she could be fooled that easily then how could you really trust her to be president?
Millions of people all over the world knew what Bush Cheney were doing was bogus, immoral, in fact downright evil and we took to the streets to protest it. I don't buy that Mrs Clinton got fooled into voting for war, I happen to think she's a very smart woman and knew exactly what she was doing. Her vote was calculated and politically expedient to her at the time and that kind of thing is her MO.
The Village Idiot from Crawford "snookered" Hillary,
and you support someone who is that easily fooled by an idiot?
I'd rather have someone who Got-It-RIGHT-the-FIRST-TIME.
Laser102
(816 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)Sensible, compassionate leadership...
reformist2
(9,841 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)That's three video clips showing her "Bombs Away/Nuke Them" support for mass destruction. I wonder how many other clips are out there...in her own words. This is dangerous and something one would expect from John McCain, Sarah Palin. They who didn't become President/VP because the public knew how crazy dangerous they were. Why should we vote for a Democrat who believes in the same policy?
Why should any Democrat vote for someone who supports Loose Cannon Policies that cause nothing but more death, destruction and degrading of the planet with the after effects of massive bombings. We can get that with a Repub.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)MBS
(9,688 posts)Not exactly the behavior or the wording of a diplomat, especially the chief diplomat.
I'm so glad she's not Sec of State right now.
That said, every single Republican candidate (including the so-called "moderate" ones ), is much worse, on both foreign and domestic policy. That's maybe most horrifying of all.
Knowing this, I am absolutely committed to voting for the Dem nominee in the GE, whoever it is .
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Those two videos show her in the worst possible light -- and I really question how they can be used by people working against us in the Middle East to show a pattern of hatred towards people in that region. Of course, it is very likely that all possible Republicans have said worse. Still, there were many articles that credited the ability to get the Iran deal to the fact that Zarif and Kerry (and Moniz and his counterpart) saw each other as trustworthy and as people who understood each other's cultures.
It is not clear to me that Clinton really has that level of empathy -- and almost worse - she seems to not value it in others. This, unfortunately, is where many Americans are - rewarding belligerent comments as "strong", while ignoring the quiet strength needed to really mend broken relationships.
MBS
(9,688 posts)I agree with every word, especially your last paragraph, and especially this:
"ignoring the quiet strength needed to really mend broken relationships" That quiet strength defines both Sec. Kerry and Pres. Obama, and what makes me glad that they're in their respective positions right now.
Now all we need is for people to put their fear aside for long enough to listen.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)against children, women or the aged ... they all die
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)In the decade of the 1980s, it's estimated that 77% of people who died in war were civilians. in the 1990s, it's estimated the 90% of those killed in war were civilians.
Definitely something worth laughing at - especially by those who initiate and perpetrate the wars!
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)and it makes my blood boil each and every time.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)When Sanders finally bows out of the primaries, the onslaught from the GOP will be merciless.
So, is this stuff "just so much shit"? Yep, but get used to it.
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)There's something wrong with her. Always has been. Creepy kind of nervous laughter there.
She's never struck me as a deep thinker.
Many of her answers seem to be too cooked up for PR such that you lack confidence in her sincerity. Too hollow - no depth of conviction like Bernie has.
It's not gender related as I'd take her handily over the entire GOP field but I'd feel like we're getting a second stringer. Like many, I'd gladly take Elizabeth Warren as a first stronger over Hillary and would have to think about whether I preferred Elizabeth over Bernie.
Here's hoping Bernie can turn it on down the stretch to Iowa & NH
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Clearing a great many hurdles and accomplishing an amazing amount on many fronts.
But 25 years as a politician and DC insider has rotted her soul.
navarth
(5,927 posts)I have always wondered how somebody can be in that soup and maintain their soul.
Seems like Bernie's our best chance.
You sig line is.....interesting. Points out some of the rank hypocricy here.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Teachers, soldiers, businesspersons, farmers...represent your people for a few years and then go back to real life. I don't think it was supposed to be a lifetime assignment. Now someone like Paul Ryan is going to literally go his entire adult life without a job outside of the DC bubble, and get filthy rich doing it. He's a walking, talking advertisement for how corrupt our system has become. And he's just one of many.
From a broad-based viewpoint Hillary has accomplished as much as any woman you can think of, and done it under extremely difficult circumstances. But these opinions and interviews that are coming to light, together with her devolution from liberal icon to neocon triangulator, paint a horrible picture of her, of DC, and of what her presidency would bring.
As for my sig, you should visit here for some side-splitting nostalgia
navarth
(5,927 posts)and yes, I am familiar with the 'nostalgia'. That poster in question lost all his credibility with me long before that revelation.
A good day to you.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)She thinks she's a player now, but in reality, she's totally replaceable, forgettable. She might be shocked to be told this, but she's just one of the boys now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, reformist.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)I can't wait for more humor "Clinton Style!"
I'm sure she has "evolved" on this position too...
Response to reformist2 (Original post)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)strength. That's what got us Iran, 911, Al Qaeeda in Iraq, Isis, etc. You wake up. Enough is Enough.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)What, o clear-eyed realist, does throwing more fuel on the fire of a violent world do to extinguish that flame?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)karynnj
(59,504 posts)in making the world less dangerous. You and I may disagree on what policies in the middle east (or here) could lessen the danger, coming from that area of the world -- but I am sure this video is counter productive. Consider how effectively the right (and even some Democrats) have used outrageous comments from Ahmadinejad.
Consider the effort that both Obama and Kerry made to put out statements for the Iranian new year - with Kerry referring to his Iranian American relatives. Those comments were clearly designed to humanize these men and to signal they saw Iranians as people.
There was an interesting Clinton email in the last batch where she forwarded a pretty cryptic Kerry email (likely on Iran and the very early efforts without writing anything that could be classified) -- she forwarded it to Jake Sullivan -- and both seemed rather dismissive.
To me, the differences go to the heart of the difference between Obama and HRC. Obama really did side with hope and a huge desire to avoid the horrors of war, where HRC might well have thought it too low a risk to succeed and taken a more militant path. ( Note that - Kerry made the first connections and Obama opted to go for it -- and HRC did assign some top people - including Sullivan to work on the secret Oman negotiations. She also took the lead in getting the world on board for the tough sanctions - something needed both wanted by the neo cons AND something that helped bring Iran to the table. Until the negotiations worked, she was noncommittal on them having any chance to work. She has however since then duly taken credit for starting the process while giving as little credit to Kerry as possible. The question I have - which obviously will never be answered is whether she would have committed the effort that Obama did had she been President for something seen to be far more likely to fail than succeed. )
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)and everyone in the audience laughed too.
They are talking about who can stop Iran from having WMD, Israel or the US. Nobody suggests war.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)Time to take the punch bowl away from that woman. She's been at the party too long.
JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)Isn't it enough you send all that "opposition research" to my crazy uncle, now you're trying it here? You forgot to say she was "cackling" about it.
You must really be afraid Trump is going to win the nomination.
It isn't going to work here, DUers are too smart to say they'll stay home or vote for the republican because there's no difference between the two.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)That's basically all she said. Bernie has said the same thing. He's not anti-war or anti-drone.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)comments. That's it.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)should always be a last resort, and even when done, should be done without glee and with respect for its gravity.
this saddens and sickens me. i would expect it from a gop war monger, but not from a dem.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Just because Hillary cackles over their deaths, it doesn't mean she'll cackle over our deaths.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)to take a shower.
ugh, just ugh.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)She voted against the amendment to ban the use of cluster bombs. Even after wars subside, after treaties are signed, after belligerents return home, cluster bombs wreak havoc on civilian life. Up to 20 percent of the bomblets fail to detonate on the first round, only to become landmines that later explode on playgrounds and farmlands. Children are drawn to cluster bomb canisters, the deadly duds that look like beer cans or toys before they explode. And yet her followers go on and on about how she's spent her whole life fighting for women and children.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/03/13/cluster-bombs-are-not-good-children-hillary
The cluster bomb is one of the most hated and heinous weapons in modern war, and its primary victims are children. In her autobiography, Living History, Senator Hillary Clinton portrays herself as an advocate for children, a defender of women and human rights. In fact, the Clintons have a long history of sacrificing the rights, even the lives of children, for political expediency. It is time to set the record straight.
On September 6, 2006, a Senate bill--a simple amendment to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas--presented Senator Clinton with a timely opportunity to protect the lives of children throughout the world.
Senator Obama voted for the amendment to ban cluster bombs. Senator Clinton, however, voted with the Republicans to kill the humanitarian bill, an amendment in accord with the Geneva Conventions, which already prohibit the use of indiscriminate weapons in populated areas.
All senators are expected to inform themselves on the issues before they cast a vote. The evidence is overwhelming. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was unaware of the humanitarian crisis when she voted to continue the use of cluster bombs in cities and populated areas. A U.N. weapons commission called cluster bombs "weapons of indiscriminate effect." For years the international press reported the horrific consequences of cluster bombs on civilians. On April 10, 2003, for example, Asia Times described the carnage in Baghdad hospitals: "The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs." Reporting from a hospital in Hillah, The Mirror, a British newspaper, became graphic: "Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that 'all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside.'"
bvar22
(39,909 posts)I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)And sleeps much better than most.
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)only priority is saying and doing whatever she can to get elected no matter what.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts).
I don't think she was laughing at the prospect of starting war with Iran, I think it was the bullshit out of Baker's mouth and the whole context of the discussion she fell into that spurred the laughter.
Now, there are legitimate reasons to pick on various candidates, but this isn't one of them.
.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... is not into context.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)How the hell can anyone support people like this.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)local is just fine
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Nor my lack of acceptance of the economic policies Hillary represents.
But the OP is wrong to portray this exchange in the way it does. I see a former hard right SoS and a sitting SoS discussing and disagreeing on a vital matter of national security WITH an awareness of the importance of the topic to domestic politics at home. Clinton did not fall for Baker's attempt to trap her her into a position she does not accept.
I think the OP is a bad post made with bad intent. I'd really appreciate it if this stuff would stop - on both sides.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)That was my take, as well. It also looks to me like pieces may have been edited in places between the back and forth -but I don't know that and was not disturbed enough by what I saw to look into it further.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)As for recommending...try the Bernie!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)"If ANYBODY'S gonna do it, it ought to be us..."
"Well... (ha-ha-ha) We're working HARD! Ha-Ha-Ha-HA-HA-HAH!!"
Sweet Jeebus, deliver us from hanging up our collective brains and letting this person get in the WH. This is not to be taken any other way, but a dangerous continuation of the same relentless bullshit that has every ethnic group in the world HATING US!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Surprised no furious Hillary supporters are spewing nonsense from correct the record in the comments.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)" if they attacked us) it would unify us"???? She's running as a DEMOCRAT?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)The Clinton crime family is trying to give the Bush crime family a real run for first place...
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Democrats from voting if Hillary is the nominee.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hillary will do that.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)chowder66
(9,073 posts)I do not see her laughing at the prospect of "taking them out" the way many here do.
It reads to me as a disagreeable laugh to what the gentleman said and was amplified by the seriousness of his statement and the cutting over to her after it went silent. It's more like a "fuck that, buddy, that's extreme shit you just said".
She even says, "We are working hard" twice > meaning diplomacy. He immediately backpedals to his previous statements regarding diplomacy first ("...we should try every possible avenue we can..." which shows that even he understood her laugh to mean "Whoa, what a minute buddy". She is laughing again, at those who say the best thing that could happen is if we were attacked by somebody because it unifies..., she clearly shows she is pushing back on the extreme statements she's been hearing ....and she ends it with "Hopefully we won't get to it", meaning war.
The context reads clear to me.
For the record; I am undecided. I like all three and I have my concerns but seriously... this is laughable. Pun totally intended.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)but, what about the other two videos?
Z
chowder66
(9,073 posts)but don't count on it (only because I'm busy until the end of time it seems... of late).
I was just responding to this particular video, since I saw the post and watched it. It had nothing to do with anything other than I wanted to see what this was about and I didn't see the same thing at all.
And the reason I felt I wanted to say something about it is that I see a lot of cynicism and anger which is how this video seems to be viewed through. (I tend to read nearly every post once I'm on a thread).
I didn't see much on the side of objectivity which personally is something that I seek out to help inform my choices and I wanted to share another way of looking at it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)chowder66
(9,073 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)chowder66
(9,073 posts)but that's tooooo brief.
I will have to find the episode that is from. It says it's about him but I didn't hear anything about that in the clip. I take it that's what it's about on the face of it but I can't give you any opinion because I see her saying that with no reference. I need to see the context for myself.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)This was her audition tape for FOX "News".
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)because we need them as an ally to fight ISIL.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)....of inhumanity? Where were you when the Towers fell? Listening to Dubya read My Pet Goat? Fuck bin Ladin and let him sleep with the fishes.
Afaiac that just about invalidates whatever else it was you had to smear around about the former Secretary of State.
Response to reformist2 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Fucking hilarious
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Because it's all so funny.
Everyone needs to witness these videos.
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Its as if destroying a nation is a weekend hobby for her and Billy. Vile cretins.
Vinca
(50,278 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 7, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)
demmiblue
(36,865 posts)This is one of the grossest things that I have ever seen.