the "vast right-wing conspiracy" meme is dead, don't spout that shit.
i'm talking straight policy, most people are talking straight policy. she has shown herself to do only what is politically advantageous. she has so far only shown one core policy belief that she will stick with, and that's dicking around in the middle east, getting people killed.
Primarily due to her being in bed so much with Wall Street.
That said its between her and Ol' Donny Jingles, so I guess you take the slightly less massive sack of dicks.
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. So study hard and be evil.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Not just that. Those people our country was supporting were radical jihadists that would later become ISIS.
While we don't know the full details of Benghazi, it is clear that a stand down was issued which prevented help from going to Christ Stevens. Our military watched in HD as those same "rebels" that murdered Gadafi did the same to our embassador. We can only speculate but some people think Stevens was involved in funneling weapons to the rebels with the sanction of the State Department. At some point he realized the people we were arming were actually radicals and refused to give them Stinger missiles, so she had him killed.
There's also how she's stolen the nomination from Sanders via super delegates when the guy has won the popular vote in a lot of those states where he "lost"...
Not at all. It'll die when they stop talking about Benghazi and email. Until then they're the ones reviving lies.
You want to vote for Trump as a "protest vote" and yet Trump has promised 25,000 troops on the ground in the middle east. You're FURIOUS about Hillary's foreign policy and yet you want to protest vote for someone who wants to send far more troops there and get us far more involved than we've ever been in history.
You've never made any sense.
Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2016-06-09 at 02:23 AM.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
There is no way a women that couldn't keep her man satisfied could possibly keep America satisfied.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
crazy part is 90% of the reasons listed in this threat could easily replace the name Hillary with Trump or just about any politician
says a lot about our 2 party system
Because she's a sellout, and basically just a shill for large corporations and billionaires.
I would trust my 8 year old nephew with national security issues over her....
Member: Dragon Flight Alpha Club, Member since 7/20/22
You can spin it all you want, she laughed at the phrase they came up with, not his death. Anyone who takes an objective look would realize they'd need to view the whole interview an understand what was going on before they made a judgment call. As it stands you really just look emotional, irrational, partisan and unwilling to understand for a political agenda.
You want a reason to hold a grudge, and you're searching for anything you can possibly get your hands on. You take a quote from an interview where she chuckles about a phrase that sounds like "We came we saw we conquered" and spin it to be about his death all for the sake of irrational dislike.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
No stand down order was given, and no video exists that you describe.
Was there a chance to act that the White House didn’t take?
Other claims we’ve fact-checked focused on what happened the night of the attacks and afterward. Some have suggested that the administration could have acted to prevent the attacks and didn’t, but the claims we looked at were just wrong and didn’t match up with actual events.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, suggested in May 2013 that the United States could have prevented the deaths with military action. Here’s what he told Sean Hannity on Fox News:
"The administration including (Defense) Secretary (Leon) Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down."
By all accounts, though, this description doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. (We outline this in more detail in our fact-check.) The mortar attack was over. We rated this statement False.
Also last year, Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said President Obama should be impeached; one reason he gave was that the White House watched live video of the attacks while it was occurring. "I’m very concerned about Benghazi, in which all of the national news reporting indicated that live video was streaming into the White House," Dewhurst told a reporter.
Actually, there’s no evidence that there was live video. Administration officials have said repeatedly that there wasn’t, and government workers have put a lot of effort into looking for video that may have been captured on the ground in Libya. Other fact-checkers and journalists have debunked this claim as well. PolitiFact Texas rated Dewhurst’s statement Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...recent-round-/
i'm not against taking action to kill terrorists. but clinton's policy isn't to kill terrorists, it's to kill stable dictators to spread democracy like an empire spreading it's influence. that's not good.
i'm not even all that for trump really. literally the only reason i'm voting for him is because it's against hillary. but his policy does have better parts to it than hers.