Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 14, 2014, 09:16:21 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82412 Posts in 2249 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 27787 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #300 on: August 19, 2014, 11:06:20 AM »

As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,

She chose to serve BHO and carry out his vacuous foreign policy.  Now, assuming she's running, she needs to both distance herself from him - on foreign policy - while still getting 100% support from him and his staff, loyalists and band of campaign outlaws.  So she gave an interview ripping him, then immediately called him to "clarify".  Got ripped back badly by Axelrod, and still failed to distance herself.  (And WE are the ones screwed?)

Republicans will have the same heart wrenching debate over foreign policy that Americans are having with themselves.  Marco Rubio is hawkish. Rand Paul is dovish.  Mike Pence is busy exercising his executive experience.  This will play out.  The hawks need to demonstrate they aren't warmongers and the doves need to convince people they aren't pushovers.  The key will be to keep the debates positive and substantive.  In the end, we need to strengthen America from within and they all agree on that.

It is the Dems who can't run on abstractions.  They had their chance and they blew it.

Forgotten about Hillary Clinton's empty foreign policy experience is that her victorious rival named a special envoy to all the difficult areas, 24 in all, leaving her free to take unlimited trips to nowhere.
http://www.usip.org/publications/us-special-envoys-flexible-tool
Obama administration’s 24 special envoys represent an unprecedented expansion of this mechanism
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #301 on: August 19, 2014, 11:24:02 AM »

While it appears to all observers (including myself) that I am losing my bet that she won't run, won't win the nomination if she does run and won't win the Presidency if she does run, today a couple of articles today seem to show the tides may be turning:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/19/hillary-clinton-summer-slide/2pc6mTziecszWDGeZ34jUL/story.html
Hillary Clinton's SUmmer Slide, Hillary is inevitable no longer
By Tom Keane,  Boston Globe Columnist   August 19, 2014
Clinton’s numbers have dropped by 10 or more points
(Not much new here except that someone besides us is saying it.)


Hillary Clinton Not Campaigning Much for her Party in 2014
By Michael Barone - August 19, 2014
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-clinton-not-campaigning-much-for-her-party-in-2014-unlike-richard-nixon-in-1966/article/2552070

Just about everyone noticed Hillary Clinton's scathing comments on President Obama's foreign policy in her interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.  But almost no one has noticed where Clinton hasn't been seen. That's on the campaign trail or at fundraisers for Democrats running for the Senate.
-----------------------------------

Why isn't she out campaigning for Democrats?
a)  This is going to be a lousy year for Dems.
b)  The candidates don't want her there.
c)  She isn't very good at campaigning.
d)  She doesn't like doing it.
e)  She doesn't want to face the difficult questions that come with being out there:

 Barone:  "That might force her to weigh in on Obamacare, illegal border crossings and fracking."

In other words, maybe she isn't running after all.   )








Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12030


« Reply #302 on: August 19, 2014, 11:31:31 AM »

She is making serious money from her speaking events. Whoops! I mean the Clinton Foundation is making serious money from her speaking events.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31189


« Reply #303 on: August 20, 2014, 09:37:37 AM »

She does not need to be doing the rubber chicken circuit.  The nomination is hers for the asking.  The Dems have absolutely NO ONE to run if she does not.  Biden?  cheesy cheesy cheesy  Warren is not stupid but is not presidential in the slightest.  The outcry for her to run should she hesitate is such a sure thing that it would not surprise me that should would do a bit of a Hamlet should-I-shouln't-I routine to elicit it.

To top it off, it is not like the Rep offerings are looking all that daunting politically.

You think she'd be scared of Cruz?

As for Rand Paul, I remind everyone of the recent and current discussion of her Atlantic interview on the Foreign Affairs thread.   Anyone here bet on Rand Paul to win that exchange?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #304 on: August 20, 2014, 10:43:49 AM »

I believe the point of stumping for others is to create loyalties and political indetedness .  I can think of only one scenario where she won't ever need that.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31189


« Reply #305 on: August 20, 2014, 01:13:59 PM »

With no opposition, she has need for neither.

My dad, who was a conservative Democrat businessman (such things did used to exist) was quite unhappy with McGovern in 1972 and wound up being Co-Chairman of Democrats for Nixon for the state of Pennsylvania. (He was on the City Committee for the Dem Party for Philadelphia and active in local politics).  In that context he got to meet with President Nixon (I have a photo of the two shaking hands at some function) and John Connally (former Gov of and Senator for TX, Sec of Treasury under Nixon and perhaps his campaign manager).  My dad said he was shocked at how little they cared about the other Rep candidates for other positions.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #306 on: August 21, 2014, 12:11:59 AM »

 I love the personal story. It's hard to say what we can learn from Nixon. He was both a fool and a political genius. He won 49 states that year.

Hill doesn't just need loyalty, she is obsessed, with it. Something is amiss here IMHO.

What greater loss did O have than losing the House? And now the Senate.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #307 on: August 21, 2014, 07:30:56 AM »

POTH tries to explain the unexplainable:

 http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/us/politics/in-midterm-elections-a-miss-for-obama-could-be-a-hit-for-clinton.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&referrer=

But if her election is already a certainty, why lose the Senate.  Those are 6 year terms!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #308 on: August 25, 2014, 11:33:03 AM »

Speaking of Cruz' view on foreign policy, what is HRC's view on Ferguson ? ? ?

 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/potential-2016-candidates-cautious-ferguson-25088527

Not ready for prime time.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31189


« Reply #309 on: August 25, 2014, 11:39:10 AM »

Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #310 on: August 25, 2014, 12:57:03 PM »

Well, my position is we should wait for the facts.  Given that I am hard put to fault Hillary for keeping her mouth shut.

I agree, but we are not in her targeted constituencies.  And I think she didn't say wait and see, she said run and hide.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #311 on: August 25, 2014, 01:39:24 PM »

Silence to violence is not leadership.  Is the looting of private stores right?  Wrong?  Or check with our focus group guy.  Dearest leader Hillary says the latter.

In contrast, Dr. Carson said something about personal responsibility and can back it up with specific policies.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 01:55:10 PM by DougMacG » Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 555


« Reply #312 on: August 29, 2014, 06:59:09 AM »

Hillary Joins the Ferguson Lynch Mob

Posted By Matthew Vadum On August 29, 2014

Breaking her calculated silence on the issue, Hillary Clinton said young Michael Brown was a victim of police brutality in Ferguson, Mo., the latest in a long line of helpless black victims mowed down by racist cops who are part of America’s corrupt criminal justice system.

It’s just more left-wing sloganeering, staples of which are knee-jerk cop hatred and making excuses for black criminals.

Clinton, wife of the man some used to call America’s “first black president,” has a long history of race-baiting and race-based pandering. She patronized black Americans in her insultingly awful mock African-American accent when she gave her infamous “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech.

The all-but-declared candidate for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president’s media-hyped public epiphany about Ferguson and Michael Brown comes days after 18-year-old Brown was laid to rest following a grotesque political rally led by the abominable racial arsonist Al Sharpton.

The former U.S. secretary of state embraces the politically correct lie that a helpless 6’4″ 292-lbs. Brown was shot in cold blood, arms raised while attempting to surrender to white police officer Darren Wilson, instead of the less convenient truth that Brown was trying to crush the decorated cop’s skull with his bare hands and reaching for the man’s handgun. Left-wingers like Clinton also prefer to ignore that fact that minutes before he attacked Wilson, Brown was captured on video bullying a much smaller East Indian shopkeeper during a robbery, an act that some might consider a hate crime. And the public is still waiting for Brown’s not-yet-released postmortem toxicology report.

The myth that Brown was a gentle giant won’t die. The racial-grievance industry, egged on by President Obama and his fellow radicals, won’t let it go. They need rampant racial tension and cop-hatred to persist in order to motivate their political base if Democrats are to have any hope of maintaining control of the U.S. Senate after the November congressional elections.

Clinton, the Benghazi bungler whose studied nonfeasance on Sept. 11, 2012, got four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, killed by Muslim terrorists, told a San Francisco audience:

“This summer, the eyes of our country and indeed the world have been focused on one community in the middle of the American heartland, Ferguson, Missouri. Watching the recent funeral for Michael Brown, as a mother, as a human being, my heart just broke for his family, because losing a child is every parent’s greatest fear and an unimaginable loss.

But I also grieve for that community and for many like it across our country. Behind the dramatic, terrible pictures on television, are deep challenges that will be with them and with us long after the cameras move on. This is what happens when the bonds of trust and respect that hold any community together fray. Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America. We are better than that.”

Although black violence is a persistent problem in America, Clinton, as always, has nothing to say about anything that might actually help black communities. They are always victims in the leftist narrative. She and her comrades have done everything in their power for the last half century since the War on Poverty was launched to weaken black families, yet they are always calling for more government programs and social engineering to cure the problems that they themselves have created.

Clinton spoke of the violence in Ferguson as if it had materialized in response to some kind of injustice, ignoring the role of what police called “outside agitators” played in driving the nightly street battles with police. She continued:

“We saw our country’s true character in the community leaders that came out to protest peacefully and worked to restrain violence. The young people who insisted on having their voices heard and in the many decent and respectful law enforcement officers who showed what quality law enforcement looks like. Men and women who serve and protect their communities with courage and professionalism, who inspire trust, rather than fear. We need more of that, because we can do better.”

Apart from her perfunctory praise of law enforcement officials and denunciation of violence, Clinton’s wording implies that Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self-defense, is not one of the “many decent and respectful law enforcement officers.” According to Clinton’s reasoning, Wilson must be a racist villain who is part of the problem.

Then Clinton began to sound like Barack Obama and other believers in the kooky legal philosophy known as Critical Race Theory, pretending that violent crimes in this country are not disproportionately committed by blacks. She ignores the fact that in some communities blacks receive heightened scrutiny from police because they seem to fit the profile of wanted suspects. If black crime were not prevalent in a specific area, chances are blacks would not receive much attention from police. But logic is not something left-wingers are often blessed with. They prefer to explain social ills by blaming white people.

Clinton continued:

“We can’t ignore the inequities that persist in our justice system that undermine our most deeply held values of fairness and equality. Imagine what we would feel and what we would do if white drivers were three times as likely to be searched by police during a traffic stop as black drivers. Instead of the other way around; if white offenders received prison sentences 10 percent longer than black offenders for the same crimes; if a third of all white men, just look at this room and take one-third, went to prison during their lifetime. Imagine that. That is the reality in the lives of so many of our fellow Americans and so many of the communities in which they live.”

Whether the specific statistics Clinton cites are valid is an arguable point, but what is not arguable is that violent black crime in America is far more prevalent that violent crime committed by whites. The statistics for young black males are particularly horrifying.

As liberal Democrat academic John McWhorter, a black American, wrote last year:

“[Y]oung black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the U.S. … Hardly uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13-year-old with gasoline and lit him on fire, saying “You get what you deserve, white boy’ (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up white Matthew Owens on his porch ‘for Trayvon’ (Mobile, Ala.) … t’s just fake to pretend that the association of young black men with violence comes out of thin air. Young black men murder 14 times more than young white men. If the kinds of things I just mentioned were regularly done by whites, it’d be trumpeted as justification for being scared to death of them.”

But Hillary Clinton would never beat up a key political constituency. She’s too busy inflaming black voters, making them feel good about their dysfunctional communities, and reinforcing the worst pathologies of inner cities.

Of course Clinton is completely supportive of Eric Holder’s witch hunt in Ferguson, where Justice Department and FBI officials have been busy gathering evidence to use in what promises to be a high-profile trumped-up civil rights prosecution against Officer Wilson. Clinton said:

“I applaud President Obama for sending the attorney general to Ferguson and demanding a thorough and speedy investigation, to find out what happened, to see that justice is done, to help this community begin healing itself. We should all add our voices to those that have come together in recent days to work for peace, justice and reconciliation in Ferguson, and beyond, to stand against violence and for the values that we cherish. We can do better.

We can work to rebuild the bonds of trust from the ground up. It starts within families and communities. It was 51 years ago today that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called us to live out true meaning of our creed, to make the dream real for all Americans. That mission is as fiercely urgent today as when he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in the hot August sun all those years ago.”

Except that Clinton, a Saul Alinsky adherent just like Barack Obama, has no interest in rebuilding bonds of trust. Like Obama, she wants to tear down America in order to rebuild it and replace it with a socialist state. Talk of “equality” and “healing” are merely arrows in her rhetorical quiver.

Clinton’s attempt to stoke the flames of racial resentment came as up-and-coming independent investigative journalist Charles C. Johnson announced he has filed a lawsuit after two law enforcement sources told him Michael Brown’s juvenile criminal record is under seal in a St. Louis court. Johnson also wonders why the so-called gentle giant opted to attend the most violent high school in the St. Louis area when he could have easily gone elsewhere.

Meanwhile, black leftists are plotting further unrest to ensure the survival and flourishing of their narrative of cop-hatred.

At a Washington, D.C. branch of Busboys and Poets, owned by celebrated radical leftist Andy Shallal, an NAACP official and other neo-communist radicals like Hugo Chavez-loving actor Danny Glover vowed to escalate their activities.

The town hall-style meeting was titled, “Ferguson and Beyond – The Way Forward: A Town Hall Meeting on Police Killings of Black Men.”

Dr. Ron Daniels, former executive director of the Marxist public interest law firm, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been essential in the Left’s long-running drive to dismantle the Global War on Terror, seemed to sum up the feelings of participants.

“We need to get ungovernable,” Daniels said. “We’ve been too tame.”

Hillary Clinton, who is determined to carry on Barack Obama’s agenda of racial antagonism, wholeheartedly agrees.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #313 on: September 10, 2014, 01:13:38 PM »

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/09/hillary-clintons-approval-numbers-return-to-earth-wsjnbc-poll/
Hillary Clinton’s Approval Numbers Return to Earth — WSJ/NBC Poll

Hillary;s approval/disapproval numbers have slid from +37 and +31 down to +2, 43 approve, 41 disapprove.
(Those will slide further as we re-acquaint ourselves with her character, personality and record.)

Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #314 on: September 11, 2014, 08:54:14 AM »

This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'
 
by Jordan Schachtel  10 Sep 2014 430  post a comment 


Tim Arango, Baghdad Bureau Chief of the New York Times, lit up President Obama’s Middle East policies in a recent “Ask Me Anything” Q & A session with users of the online forum Reddit.

One user asked, “How do you rate the Obama administration’s actions in Iraq? What did they do right? What did they get wrong?

The Baghdad Bureau Chief responded by bluntly stating that the Obama administration since 2011 has “basically ignored the country [Iraq].”

He continued, “when [US] officials spoke about what was happening there they were often ignorant of the reality.”

The NYT correspondent said that Obama officials stubbornly refused to see the realities on the ground, “because it conflicted with their narrative.”

He then took a jab at Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken, known as one of the President’s trusted advisers on foreign policy.

“In 2012, as violence was escalating I wrote a story, citing UN statistics, that showed how civilian deaths from attacks were rising,” Arango added. “Tony Blinken, who was then Biden’s national security guy and a top Iraq official, pushed back, even wrote a letter to the editor, saying that violence was near historic lows. That was not true.”

Blinken is now Deputy National Security Advisor to President Obama. After obtaining his JD Columbia Law School, he went straight into Democratic politics -- fundraising for the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis. Blinken then joined the Clinton administration under the assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian affairs. In 2008, he worked on Joe Biden’s failed campaign for President but was then appointed by President Obama to be his Deputy National Security Advisor in January of 2013.

VP Biden has previously referred to Blinken as his “go-to-guy” on Iraq -- known for helping to facilitate the US withdrawal from Baghdad -- a plan marred by the administration's failure to secure a status-of-forces agreement.

Even when the Islamic State was marching across Iraq unchecked, Obama officials ignored the jihadi group’s rise because it wasn’t politically expedient to tackle such issues, according to the NYT journalist.

Arango concluded: “Even after falluja fell to ISIS at the end of last year, the administration would push back on stories about Maliki’s sectarian tendencies saying they didn’t see it that way. So there was a concerted effort by the administration not to acknowledge the obvious until it became apparent -- with the fall of Mosul -- that Iraq was collapsing.”

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4064


« Reply #315 on: September 11, 2014, 09:04:22 AM »

Doug writes:

"Inevitable that she will run, win the nomination, and win the general election?  I don't think so.   )"

I hope your right.   But they have such a mafia like mob behind them and so many careers, opportunities, money at stake for so many who have influence, money and power and want more of the same that t she is a formidable force even though flawed when she tries to think and speak unprepared as well as everything else we know about here.


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #316 on: September 11, 2014, 11:50:16 AM »

This is really a Clinton story.   The Clintonites are turning the screws to BamBam to clear the stage for their new exalted chosen one:  Hillary.
********NYT Baghdad Bureau Chief: Obama 'Ignored' Iraq, Is 'Ignorant of Reality'   ...

That's right.  They want her (or someone) to represent all of the hope and change, but without the incompetence and glibness.  Liberalism is not the problem,they mistakenly argue, it is the flawed messenger.  Obama kept a tee time 5 minutes after his 5 minutes of vacation interrupting outrage over a beheading video.  Hillary traveled some record number of miles willing to accomplish nothing just to prove her unending commitment to work endlessly.

If not ignorance or inexperience, Hllary has her own problems.  She was for, against, and now for the Iraq war?  Her healthcare passage and rollout would have been different.  Really?  Her competence and readiness for the 3am phone call was on display during the warnings prior, the 13 hours during, and the aftermath cover-up of the Benghazi attacks?  Not so.

She needs 3 things to win and succeed.  The first two are mutually exclusive and the third is impossible:

1.  A nearly complete break with the Obama administration, calling him out on his errors and failures.
2.  The full backing and support of the Obama political machine that won two presidential elections.
3.  To be a candidate with a gift for politics and communication on a par with Bill Clinton, Obama and Reagan.

she has done all the ground work to be ready to launch a campaign.  Taking the Sec State job, quitting after one term, writing the book, working the book tour, and obviously her previous efforts getting elected and serving in the Senate.   She has test marketed her product and I say it failed.  Next should be to take her message nationwide in support of Dem candidates across the country.  To be the de facto national leader of her party as Obama implodes.  We are well into Sept with a month and a half to go and, for whatever reasons, she has not done that.

Very shortly after the midterms she needs to announce her decision one way or the other.  She can bring her flawed product to market and finish her career very likely as a two time loser.  Or as many smart people do, exit the scene while still perceived to be on top.  If she chooses the latter, she better do it soon; her polling trend looks like that is the last right side up one already happened. 

Once she announces she is out, her polling numbers and the value of her opinion and endorsements will go up.  Look at her husband's numbers.  The Dem party will be forced to scramble, same as the Republicans are doing now.  The next year will be interesting.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31189


« Reply #317 on: September 11, 2014, 07:32:42 PM »

Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5921


« Reply #318 on: September 12, 2014, 08:45:38 AM »

Note that in his interview with Chris Wallace, Romney laid the black hole that Libya has become at her feet-- and correctly so.  While Baraq went on vacation to Brazil, Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername crafted the "Lead from behind strategy" for Libya.  Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too.  Now Libya is an anarchic wasteland of Islamo-fascism-- just what we went to Afpakia to prevent.

"Presumably the  presumed gun running operation in Benghazi supplying Syrian rebels was her idea too."

The gun running out of Bengazi doesn't seem to be backed up with evidence, at least yet, so we still have no idea what the mission was.  The rest of that statement rings 100% true without the missing piece.

"Hillary, Susan Powers, and Samantha Wuzhername"  - Susan Rice and Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, lol.  Oddly, President Obama opposed his own policy in Libya, a difficult point to argue after the fact.  Ask Michelle about her entourage booking 60 rooms at a Spanish villa during the economic collapse and flying the family dog on a separate jet to Nantucket, he doesn't know how to stand up to strong women.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!