2016 Presidential Election

Politics and religion.

Moderator: JasonNC

User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:34 pm
Hillary has such an affinity with the common folk. Her campaign is so eager to astro-turf common folk into her photo-ops that her functionaries rounded up and drove a few of them to her latest Midwest stop.

“The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” says Clinton, in this political ad mainly aimed at women and minorities. The token homosexual and lesbian couples are briefly included as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... uY7gLZDmn4

Her staunch wish to ally with common folks, who suffered hard economic times, didn't get in the way of her accepting serious donations from guys at the top in 2008. Out of the top 20 contributors to Hillary in 2008, six were banks – JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch and crucially Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.

Her so-called beliefs also didn't stop Hillary from this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/po ... .html?_r=1

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.

Saudi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor to the Clinton Foundation, giving at least $10 million since 2001, according to foundation disclosures. At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of Saudi Arabia, co-founded by a Saudi prince.


So Hillary is a champion of the American common folk and supposedly a champ for American women, except she's on the take from countries that treat women like cattle.

In the West, we have to listen to unproductive and sometimes vicious 3rd wave feminist rantings that are not only anti-men, but also anti-women too. However, these feminists get much of their righteous indignation from the cases of real mistreatment of women in the third world, or from third world men who treat women like crap in the Western world. In comparison, men born and raised here are being feminized and arguably ridiculed for simply being men, while women enjoy some of the best opportunities and esteem ever recorded in history.

Anyway, Hillary has no sense of contradiction. She can be a fake champ of underdogs, while women are encouraged to applaud her, but no one cares if she gladly accepts foreign donations (foreign influence) from brutal anti-female dictatorships. Saudi Arabia: a ridiculous monarchy which has the equivalent of modern day slaves; they torture and behead; practice a theocratic police state; bans women from driving, showing any skin, or walking around alone; and a country where the elite may lock up their daughters and wives in the towers. No joke.

Back to Western voting. I hate collectivism. You don't support someone because of their gender only, or because of the subtle tone of their skin, or if they had a certain background shared by others. Really that's just sexism or racism, the very crap which liberals seek to shame people with. You support someone based on their policies and the power and intelligence with which they might implement them.
Last edited by Dorm on Thu Apr 16, 2015 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 7:50 pm
Speaking of policies....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/unprecedent ... bsite.html

So far, Hillary has zero policies listed on her campaign site. Yet 5 of the Republican candidates have websites overflowing with their respective policy platforms. My goodness, they're all male too! Buncha sexists with logical points to say.

I imagine that the final Donkey vs Rhino candidates will be those who have no distinct, unique, and contradicting policies. The last 2 elections saw candidates who more or less agreed with the general gist of the unclear, general things Obama said. Maybe some details were argued; slightly different variations. Maybe some irrelevant, shock-value things puffed up some dust. But in the end, a clear lack of policy won the day. Expect slogans, hand-clapper lines, and pot shots instead.

As we've seen time and again, the (presidential admin) policies are revealed to be decided by insider corporations, think tanks, military/intelligence bureaucracies, and some foreign lobbies. Hell, that's where many of the unelected appointees come from who end of running things in the end.
Quote
User avatar
Chief Commander of the Skrull Horde
Posts: 5019
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:20 pm
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:07 am
meanwhile, her husband is visiting a small island that peddle underage prostitutes... and no one is concerned by this.
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:44 am
Oh, that's just Bill being Bill. Just like when creepy creeper Joe Biden sexually harasses women. It's no big deal.
Quote
User avatar
Woah! Double lightsaber! Double lightsaber all the way!
Posts: 6286
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:42 pm
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:44 am
Democrats can be womanizers! It doesn't mean they're bad people!

I mean think of the Kennedys! Those irascible scamps!
Image
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 10:19 am
How dare you imply that the Kennedys were womanizers! I am triggered!
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:37 pm
I actually don't mind if politicians bang mistresses on the side. Most major leaders had side nookie. While not always, the wives often knew -- at least some of it -- and thus tolerated it. Political marriages may be like that, based on history, because the wives are a bit psycho too, thinking of power and image. It's only a big deal if some 3rd party finds out and the husbands and wives have to put on a big show.

Hillary herself apparently was fine with Bill's affairs, since the published stories go that she's a bisexual with sights on women and other men.

Anyway, it's the hypocrisy that gets me. You don't say a bunch of crap or tell people how to act and then do the opposite.

JFK was after grown women, true (JFK also had a real romance with his wife, even as he played around too). FBI director Hoover was covertly monitoring JFK's affairs, and yet Hoover himself was a later proven cross-dressing homosexual with a secret agent lover on the side. The CIA and the mob knew about Hoover's sexuality, and they knew about JFK's affairs and even helped to get him babes (perhaps seeking to influence/compromise him). All 3 of these parties: president, FBI, and CIA/mob alliance were monitoring and black-mailing each other. It was a stale-mate until.... suddenly it wasn't and it went checkmate.

Game of Thrones type stuff. Still, the hypocrisy wasn't as thick as with the current politicians. Example: Bill Clinton wanted to scold and regulate the Pr0N industry. But he was fresh from being Mr. Swinger governorin Arkansas, then he was having cigar-time with opportunistic bimbos in the Oval Office. Then he goes off to fantasy island to score some underage prostitute action. Wha?... I'm supposed to delete that porn vid now after Bill shows me the light?

When it comes to Republicans, it's also pretty gross how a few of them pretend to be married, All-American, super-tough, righteous-acting heterosexuals lecturing voters on proper conduct when they're literally going after male aides, or trying to pick up men in Airport washroom stalls, or putting ads in the paper seeking other men. No the Republicans aren't all like that. Just saying, there's enough of those hypocrites around in the GOP (slagged as Gay Old Party, when all the stories came out) that you really have to be skeptical.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:08 pm
Image

I'm wondering.... If the world raised say, $30million, for the Clinton Foundation, maybe Hillary could be bribed to drop out.
Quote

Snarky!
Posts: 13692
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:01 pm
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:09 am
Nah. She's offered plenty of evidence she can be bought, but I think she's too convinced that it's her turn to be President. I don't think her ego will allow her to bow out gracefully at this point.
Quote
User avatar
AJ Research Dept
Posts: 2881
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:14 am
PostPosted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:00 pm
I was just kidding. :mrgreen: I mostly agree with you, though. Her ego is the main driver. Then again, Hillary, like all other major presidential candidates, past and present, are creatures. They are privileged, selected, branded, pampered, appointed commanders of the huge interests backing them. If these interests didn't want her around, she would be dropping out, or would never have reappeared in the first place.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to It matters!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron