How about a bit of balance on Hillary Clinton?

Written By: - Date published: 8:04 am, June 13th, 2016 - 275 comments
Categories: us politics - Tags: , ,

Politics is always a struggle. It’s a contest of ideas, of values, of personalities, relationships and working partnerships. It can be tough and it can be nasty. Sometimes there’s manipulation, unseen influences and dishonesty. That’s true on the right and (whether or not we want to admit it) on the left.

Hillary Clinton has been a political operator for many decades. Unsurprisingly she’s had to make tough decisions, some of them very unpopular and some of them pretty much the opposite of what I (from the relative privilege of an outsider’s view, as someone who doesn’t have to live with the immediate consequences of these decisions on my conscience) would like to believe I would make. She’s also (shock, horror) changed her mind about some issues, made political bargains for what she sees as the greater long-term good and had to swallow some dead rats. Which politician with a long record of service at a high level hasn’t?

I would like to challenge a few allegations and labels that are thrown around by some commenters on this site at times, though: in particular that she’s dishonest and “belongs in prison”. Have a look at what long-time political reporter Jill Abramson from The Guardian has to say about this:

“As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising.

Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy… Politifact, a Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking organization, gives Clinton the best truth-telling record of any of the 2016 presidential candidates. She beats Sanders and Kasich and crushes Cruz and Trump, who has the biggest “pants on fire” rating and has told whoppers about basic economics that are embarrassing for anyone aiming to be president. (He falsely claimed GDP has dropped the last two quarters and claimed the national unemployment rate was as high as 35%).”

Abramson thinks Clinton could handle her public relations better, saying she’s very protective of her privacy, but she also understands that Clinton has been subjected to extremely intrusive investigation for decades and that her response (a “zone of silence”) is understandable.

Looking at the Politifact site is also very revealing. It gives a much more nuanced view of Clinton’s actions and opinions than we often get from commenters here. They rate 72% of her public claims as True, Mostly True or Half True. Have a look at the discussion of the (ridiculous, misleading) YouTube video that accuses Hillary of “lying for 13 minutes straight”, for example.

It’s interesting to look at how Trump, the preferred president of some vociferous commenters on this site (now that Bernie Sanders is no longer an option) rates. 76% False, Mostly False, or Pants on Fire (a massive 16% compared to Hillary’s 1%). And what about Sanders himself?  49% False or Mostly False (although to his credit his pants seem to be safe from combustion).

I know this isn’t the only issue that left wing commentators think about when they consider a Clinton presidency. I agree with concerns about the Bush/Clinton/Kennedy oligarchy, the distorted role of special delegates and the ridiculous costs of primaries in the US. There’s plenty of room for argument about the US’s recent roles in Libya and Syria (dammed if they do  and dammed if they don’t) – both of which, let’s remember, are the result of the leadership of Obama and the collective decision-making of the Senate, not the sole responsibility of Clinton (and no, I won’t call her “Killary”).

I have no special affection for Hillary Clinton – I’m really glad that Sanders has opened up the political landscape and think he’s played an important role in helping to create pressure for a leftward shift. However, I’ve been really disturbed by the level of anger and negativity, and by the asinine concept that it’s somehow “purer” for left-leaning folk to vote Trump over Clinton in some kind of attempt to “bring on the revolution”. I also happen to agree with te reo putake that we should celebrate the social shift that is slowly allowing strong women to step forward into leadership roles (a different kind of revolution).

I know not everyone on this site is going to agree with me, but I think it’s time we stopped buying into the Trump-ite view of Hillary Clinton. I can imagine a US (and a world) with her as American President; I don’t want to imagine one with Mr Pants-On-Fire at the helm.

— red-blooded

 

trump-statements-false

275 comments on “How about a bit of balance on Hillary Clinton? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Greg 1
    13 June 2016 at 8:19 am

    A simple search of Saudi donating to Hillary, aka weapons contracts, shows how she will bring about peace in the Middle East.
    Honest politicians in America, it has to be a oxymoron doesnt it
    The presidential nomination race is a distract from voting out a republican congress,
    all of whom are up for re-election.

    • dukeofurl 1.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:27 am

      “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S. ”
      Federal Election Commission.

      Greg its this sort of bullshit that you are spouting that ignores reality. Shes not perfect for those who who want some sort of perfect idealist.

      The ignorance of many about US political system and its rules is amazing

  2. Puckish Rogue 2
    13 June 2016 at 8:34 am

    If you google Hillary Clinton deaths theres quite a few sites dedicated to listing associates of the Clintons that’ve passed away

    I don’t know the veracity of the claims because they’re probably all crackpots but its disturbing that they’re out there in the first place

    • hoom 2.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:22 am

      I’m no Clinton fan & I don’t think I could vote for her any more than I could vote for Key but Snopes has a page on earlier versions most of which are from Bills’ tenure.
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
      While some of those explanations aren’t exactly satisfactory, it does show that a lot of the connections are tenous/non-existent & descriptions sexed up/outright wrong.

      • dukeofurl 2.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:50 am

        The Clintons have a wide and I mean wide circle of friends and associates than most ?

      • Puckish Rogue 2.1.2
        13 June 2016 at 10:52 am

        I agree, it wasn’t about showing that the Clintons had anything to do with it but more that there are people out there that do think it and are willing to put up a lot of sites about it

        • dukeofurl 2.1.2.1
          13 June 2016 at 12:00 pm

          I typed in “Puckish Rogue lies” and got 50,000 hits.

          Careful what you ask for.
          best hit
          “Poopdeck Swabbing on The Duck : An Inconvenient Lie…… You puckish rogue.

  3. mauī 3
    13 June 2016 at 8:41 am

    It’s fine to support Hillary, you just have to live with the fact nothing really changes in the US. Half the US population still in poverty, thousands more deaths and misery in US led foreign conflicts. But the big banks will still be raking in the profits, thats the important thing…

    • RedLogix 3.1
      13 June 2016 at 11:13 am

      This is close to my reading of it as well. Clinton is what she is; she’s a long time political insider and for the most part I agree she’s carried out this role with as much integrity and decency as anyone might operating in that system.

      I’ve never felt the need to demonise her, nor describe her as Trump-lite. I would certainly never call her ‘Killary’.

      But I would not vote for her for the simple reason that everything she says and does confirms she represents more of the same broken political system. She will pretend and extend and her term will only drag the USA (and the political hegemony it operates) deeper into a social and environmental deadzone, from which the chances of recovery without collapse or upheaval are even further diminished.

      And the fact that I say this about the probable first woman President of the USA only saddens me. It should be a history making moment, but history might well remember her for all the wrong reasons.

      • Andre Prassinos 3.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 7:49 pm

        “Killary” may require a fresh body of jurisprudence to substantiate but “Shillary” is a well-deserved moniker for a person entrenched in the interests of USA crony capital.

        The sins of the Clinton Foundation and its interconnection with the email fiasco are ample reason to run screaming from Hillary as a candidate.

        Choosing Hillary as a way to prevent Trump’s ascendance is a bad idea given how poorly she polls against The Donald.

        The only real hope for Democracy in the USA, IMHO, is to pray for an outright DOJ indictment of Hillary, or at least a referral to a Grand Jury, before the Democratic convention such that either Sanders or an alternative (the Biden scenarios, etc.) candidate can be selected with the last shreds of meaningful democratic decision-making in the tortured Democratic primary/caucus process.

        Having fled the USA during the Bill Clinton presidency, and being amazed to see things actually get worse after that debacle, there is more than a tiny part of me that wants to see what happens when you let America elect its own Berlusconi in the form of The Orange One. If you nominate Hillary, the odds of a Trump presidency rise markedly.

        • Chris 3.1.1.1
          15 June 2016 at 2:51 am

          That’s the irony of the outcome of the Democrat primary: Sanders has got a way better chance of beating Trump than Clinton.

      • D'Esterre 3.1.2
        14 June 2016 at 12:21 am

        How about a bit of balance on Clinton? Well, there’s this: http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/201804187/richard-kreitner-the-real-hillary-clinton

        Not only her history, but the fact that her randy old goat of a husband would be installed in the White House as First Chap. AND, she plans to put him in charge of – what? The economy, isn’t it? Jeezus Christ on a bicycle! That’d be enough to scare off the punters, wouldn’t it?

  4. roy cartland 4
    13 June 2016 at 8:45 am

    Kshama Sawant would be a better choice than the lot of them, including Bernie. Maybe the time is ripe for her to stand?

    http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016/03/27/video-socialist-kshama-sawant-speaks-bernie-sanders-mass-rally/

  5. Esoteric Pineapples 5
    13 June 2016 at 8:50 am

    One has to remember that the United States is a superpower and whoever is president will inevitably work for its best interests, good or bad.

  6. Colonial Viper 6
    13 June 2016 at 8:55 am

    Bernie or Bust supporter explains on CNN why she will never vote for Clinton ever: dhe doesn’t like how Clinton has lied to win votes, and she doesn’t like the things that Clinton has done in power.

    • red-blooded 6.1
      13 June 2016 at 9:24 am

      This young woman is very impassioned and she’s entitled to her viewpoint. That doesn’t automatically make her right, though. Have a think about the statement, “People are dying in Hondurus as a result of their first democratic elections”. Perhaps a little troubling? Maybe you should check out Bernie’s record of voting for US interventions in other states (including Iraq). He’s not exactly been a dove…

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/16/blood-traces-bernies-iraq-war-hypocrisy/

      (Sorry if the link above doesn’t work, I’m doing this away from my usual computer.)

      I think the main point, though, is that she doesn’t give any ALTERNATIVE to voting for Clinton; given that Sanders is out, what does she suggest her fellow Americans do? Roll over and let Trump roll right over them?

      • Vinnie 6.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:14 am

        I’ve had a think about the statement “People are dying in Honduras as a result of their first democratic elections” and I can’t think what you’re getting at, please elaborate.

    • dukeofurl 6.2
      13 June 2016 at 10:30 am

      What is she going to do when Bernie Sanders endorses Clinton.

      face palm ?

      • Vinnie 6.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 12:08 pm

        Movement over personality I would guess

      • DoublePlusGood 6.2.2
        13 June 2016 at 12:25 pm

        She’ll just not vote. Turnout in US elections is much lower than here, the two party system with unappealing candidates on both sides is a factor in why.

  7. Ad 7
    13 June 2016 at 8:56 am

    +1 Red Blooded

  8. Sabine 8
    13 June 2016 at 9:05 am

    no matter what this women is going to do,

    she will be worse then her husband – insert what ever reason
    she will be worse then Bush the Elder, Bush the Younger, and of course Cheney was her apprentice
    she will be worse than the Trump
    in fact she is the devil re-incarnate
    and also her vagina has teeth
    also she ‘cackles’
    and she will start world war three, she will eat babies, she will ruin all the wimminz with her uppityness and insistence of equal pay, access to female healthcare including abortion and known abortifacient such as the pill -, and when she is not eating babies for breakfast she will roast the private parts of men other then her husband on the family bbq for snacks.

    Did i miss anything?

    • Crashcart 8.1
      13 June 2016 at 9:39 am

      I get that this is Hyperbole but do you have any example of someone using an argument even similar to one of the examples you have given?

      I only ask because it is annoying when people make up horrible attack lines and attribute them to others just to try and gain a high ground the doesn’t exist.

    • Vinnie 8.2
      13 June 2016 at 9:45 am

      The criticism I hear form the left (because that’s what we are talking about isn’t it) is not what she is going to do, it’s what she has done.

      I don’t think that your baby eating fantasy is accurate of any left wing critique of Clinton I’ve been hearing.

      Maybe I just read/listen to different sources, which by the look of it I’m pleased about.

      • Sabine 8.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:52 am

        Mate, all the points that i have listed has a. been said about her, b. Southpark, c. Fox News etc etc etc.

        Personally i would have liked to see Sanders, but i rather have Hillary then Trump.

        But to make Hillary out to be the worst of them all is a bit far fetched.
        As the writer from the Guardian points out so well, she is not as bad as she is made out to be, she is one of the most investigated Politicos our there, Benghazi!!! i think they are at the elevety hearing now and still can’t hang anything on her, and gasp yes she gets vitiriol thrown at her for being a women.

        This reminds me of the election period leading up to election day 2008 in NZ.

        We had three contenders,
        Jeanette Fitzsimmons
        Helen Clark
        John Key

        the only one making sense was Jeanette Fitzsimmons, but we got John Key. Were did get us too? Ghost Houses, Ghost Jobs, Record Deficit, Increased Military Spending, hungry kids, hungry parents and what nots.

        So yeah, I hope that they will vote for Hillary.

        • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 10:56 am

          You say increased military spending, I say not increased enough

          • Sabine 8.2.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 11:22 am

            yes dear.

            • Puckish Rogue 8.2.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2016 at 11:43 am

              I feel that 1.1% of our gdp is lagging behind our allies, we should be nearer to 1.5% at least.

              Unfortunately NZ is an island and with a large amount of oceans and seas to patrol

              Unfortunately due to successive governments (Labour and National) the military has been run down and so our aircraft and ships are getting near (overdue) their use by date and they’re not cheap

              We could look into the increased of use of drones for some of this but it will still requite big ticket items like ships and aircraft to do this, assuming you think its worth patrolling in the first place?

              Humanitarian efforts are certainly made easier by having the military on hand, large bodies of people quickly organised and so forth

              That’s not to mention the supplies sent to pacific islands in times of need (and how the supplies get there most importantly) and by the deployment of troops on the ground as well, engineers and medics most notably

              Our men and women do a very good job so its not unreasonable to provide them with decent tools to do the job better

              The military, through its Youth Development Unit and Limited Service Volunteer course also helps to improve the lots of disadvantaged kids in NZ

              • Stuart Munro …
                13 June 2016 at 12:08 pm

                When our government finds the cost of fuel to run half our navy too much now there’s not much point in buying more.

                They need to fix the economy they’ve munted before going all guns over butter.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 June 2016 at 12:35 pm

                I definitely back increased spending and development of the NZDF however not in the typical ways which are primarily geared to help the western empire fight foreign wars on the other side of the world.

                We need to be able to monitor and secure our nearby economic interests as well our interests around Antarctica, and have strong logistics and defence capabilities ready to support our nearby Pacific neighbours.

              • KJT …
                13 June 2016 at 9:28 pm

                If we are going to send people into harms way we should give them the best gear possible.

                However I think we should be equipping them to protect New Zealand, respond to disasters, and help our neighbors when needed.

                Not to help the USA in the next war against whoever decides to nationalise their oil industry, or have democratic elections.

        • Vinnie 8.2.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 12:15 pm

          I took the original post to be about why we should like Hillary not why people should vote for her. Also I took it to be a critique of the left, your examples seem to be of the right.

          • red-blooded 8.2.1.2.1
            13 June 2016 at 3:45 pm

            Did I say anything in the post about liking Hillary? I just said that we needed to step back a bit and have a more balanced viewpoint.

        • Dennis Merwood 8.2.1.3
          13 June 2016 at 6:34 pm

          Mate, all progressive Americans know that the Guardian is in the bag for the “Queen of Chaos”. Their coverage and journalism, and I use the word advisedly, has been even worse than our US lamestream media.

          Most American’s also know that the Benghazi fiasco was a CIA front for the purpose of transferring poor old murdered Gadhafi’s weapons to terrorists, fully supervised by our Secretary of State.

          And the “vitiriol thrown at her for being a women”, isn’t because she is a women. It’s because she is a disgusting women coasting on the coat tails of her husband. [Dennis, that line is an example of vitriol being thrown at her for being a woman. Don’t do it again. TRP]

          This American will not vote for a warmonger. How about the Green Party’s Jill Stein, or the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson. Probably a waste of my vote, but at least I will be able to look my grandkids in the eye with a clear conscience.

    • Karen 8.3
      13 June 2016 at 1:24 pm

      Sabine – You made me laugh out loud on a morning when it was hard to laugh.

      I’m not a fan of Clinton’s politics but the vitriol being expressed against her is so extraordinary that it is impossible not to see a strong misogynist element to it.

      This is a good adjunct to this post:
      https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1078093752256030&id=100001662458374&set=a.102236856508396.3404.100001662458374

      With Clinton there will be more of the same – not ideal, but the thought of Trump becoming president is nightmarish.

    • mikesh 8.4
      13 June 2016 at 2:45 pm

      She probably will be worse than the Don in some respects, and there is a fair probability of her starting WW3. However, as you imply, the rest is probably nonsense.

  9. Vinnie 9
    13 June 2016 at 9:07 am

    It’s time to stop trying to disregard people with genuine concerns about Hillary as default Trump supporters.
    “I know not everyone on this site is going to agree with me, but I think it’s time we stopped buying into the Trump-ite view of Hillary Clinton”

    Here’s some reading from some one who’s is most definitely not a Trump support with a much more damning critique of Hillary that Trump would even be able to manage.

    http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/my-turn-by-doug-henwood/

    • Adrian Thornton 9.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:35 am

      Great point Vinnie, I have heard Henwood talk about his book on his Behind the News show on KPFA, I agree, anyone who is interested in current American politics should follow this up.
      Not to mention, Behind the News also has some of the best interviews with some of the most interesting and informed contemporary political/economic thinkers working today.

  10. Adrian Thornton 10
    13 June 2016 at 9:43 am

    I can’t believe this site will run a piece like this, why should anyone in their right mind lighten up on Clinton, lets looks at some facts shall we….

    1.Pro war Super Hawk
    Supported invasion of Iraq, and all the subsequent other acts of aggression in the Middle East that have involved the US, this has led directly to organizations like ISIS.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uug1D-2_O34

    2. Her unbelievably hawkish position on Israel.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSjwRMvbmCI

    3. Her obvious ties to Wall st . Not revealing Her transcripts.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-11/2004-flashback-elizabeth-warren-describes-hillary-clinton-puppet-wall-street

    4. Fracking, as usual what she says and what she does are two completely different things.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czYO8wmjtGA

    5. TPP/free trade
    Again as usual no one can get a firm answer of this slippery politician.
    So we will take that as she does, until she actually say’s she doesn’t.
    https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_the_Trans-Pacific_Partnership_trade_deal

    Now I have to go to work, but I could go on and on, in short, it is just this type of settling for the status quo, centrist ideology that have got the Left absolutely nowhere, at best fighting a rearguard action against the Right who, in case you haven’t noticed are kicking our asses.

    On the Left we must draw moral and ethical lines in the sand that we Will Not Cross.
    We must wrestle the high ground back from the Right, and start the fight from a place where we will win on our terms, not theirs.
    Backing Clinton is anything but this, the American Left might have to swallow that bitter pill, but don’t bring that bullshit here.

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      13 June 2016 at 9:48 am

      You clearly can’t deal with the idea of a woman as US President. And the fact that you would use all these ludicrous sexist misogynistic attacks. Shame on you.

      • Vinnie 10.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:02 am

        I know you’re joking but that seems to be the argument Sabine was putting up.

        • weka 10.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 10:34 am

          And it’s not the argument that the guest post put up. Which kind of begs the question of whether the point was missed. We can ridicule and condemn but if we also mislead in that then we’re not serving the world very well in our politics.

          (CV has a pretty large antipathy towards what he calls identity politics, and knowing that puts his comment in context).

          • dukeofurl 10.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 12:05 pm

            And Sanders
            Bernie Sanders himself voted twice in support of regime change in Iraq.
            In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from..”
            and again
            ““Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This one led to tightened sanctions

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 12:30 pm

          Vinnie, I am picking an easy Trump win at the end of the year. Clinton doesn’t stand a chance IMO. But if she does win, I expect to see shooting wars start with China and or Russia during her term in power. And I would expect to see more American military forces on NZ soil/in NZ ports.

          • dukeofurl 10.1.1.2.1
            13 June 2016 at 4:18 pm

            Based on what exactly- your deep interest knowledge in US affairs and politics ?

            or a few talking points from others who ignore all the relevant factors.

            Like this statement by Clinton during the debate for the 2002 Congress resolution

            My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.

            She has said since that she made a mistake then in trusting GWB would fully explore ALL options for peace before going to war

    • dukeofurl 11.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:34 am

      You dont read your links do you, I did and this is what it said

      “If the United States government declares a coup, you immediately have to shut off all aid including humanitarian aid, the Agency for International Development aid, the support that we were providing at that time for a lot of very poor people”

      She did say it was ‘barely constitutional’ but then the same happened with Whitlam, except he wasnt taken in his pjamas to the airport.

  12. Reality 12
    13 June 2016 at 10:10 am

    Good luck with Trump’s crazed rantings and ravings then, and his suspect wheelings and dealings, for those who think Hillary is not fit to be a woman in a man’s place.

  13. Psycho Milt 13
    13 June 2016 at 10:11 am

    Complaining that a main-party candidate for POTUS isn’t left-wing enough is like complaining that a candidate for Grand Wizard of the KKK isn’t black enough. If they were left-wing, they wouldn’t be a main-party candidate for POTUS. The only real question is whether Clinton is a worse candidate than Trump, which shouldn’t be a very long discussion.

    • b waghorn 13.1
      13 June 2016 at 11:16 am

      Yep any one who doesn’t vote for Clinton because she isn’t Sanders and leaves the do open for trump isn’t mature enough to be allowed to vote .

    • RedLogix 13.2
      13 June 2016 at 12:22 pm

      A boiler-plate “lessor of two evils” argument PM.

      Which has been all well and good for several generations now, but eventually it led to a place where the USA has two candidates for POTUS both so unpopular the majority of people can barely stomach either of them.

      Not a good place for democracy.

  14. Olwyn 14
    13 June 2016 at 10:13 am

    Firstly, if you are not a US citizen you do not vote in US elections, so this article is largely about who to cheer for, and what to take heart from, rather than who to vote for. And I am far more heartened by Bernie’s pushing against the boundaries of the matrix than the cracking of glass ceilings within it. I want to see the movement associated with Sanders stay strong and stay hungry, whoever ends up as president. What Sanders has already shown up is the passivity that has come to be expected of the left, exemplified by those who say, “He’s lost. Why doesn’t he just concede and get behind Hillary?” Can anyone imagine the right throwing in the towel, just like that? Margaret Thatcher? Roger Douglas? They might strategically concede a battle but certainly not the war. Sanders has gone a long way toward reversing the passivity of the left, while Clinton relies on its continuance. Even if she becomes president any positive change will only come about through sufficient pressure from the outside.

    • dukeofurl 14.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:39 am

      Almost all of Trumps earlier GOP opponents have backed him now.

      your point is ?
      Sanders has done nothing and wont be heard from in 3 months. Nothing of his platform will become policy

      • Olwyn 14.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 11:21 am

        Whatever is happening on the GOP side regarding Trump – the right will not give up the fight – they will go to wherever they think their interests will be advanced because that is what they do. The left are only beginning to reawaken to the possibility of doing the same, with Bernie Sanders playing a key role in this. Clinton is too much part of the establishment to seriously challenge it without being forced by real pressure from outside. Therefore, I want to see Sanders do whatever he needs to do to maintain that pressure. That is my point.

      • Colonial Viper 14.1.2
        13 June 2016 at 12:24 pm

        Sanders has done nothing and wont be heard from in 3 months. Nothing of his platform will become policy

        It already has. Clinton has been forced to move on the minimum wage for one. She has been forced to declare against the TPP for another. And for a third she has started talking against big money corruption of campaign financing.

        Of course, I don’t count any of these as being honest or sincere positions of hers, and from your statement neither do you.

        • dukeofurl 14.1.2.1
          13 June 2016 at 4:24 pm

          Shouldnt politicians listen to voters concerns ?

          How did your clique go when trying take over a labour LEC ? The votes of the masses or reading old minutes to make new facts.

      • adam 14.1.3
        13 June 2016 at 12:34 pm

        Let go of your hate dukeofurl, it will eat you up.

        Mr Sanders is a good guy as far as establishment politics goes, your support of the deceiver only lets your hate consume you.

        • dukeofurl 14.1.3.1
          13 June 2016 at 4:28 pm

          Sure . Im not a US citizen so I dont get to vote. neither do you, Im assuming.

          If I was in US then I could well have voted for Sanders as he would be close to what I believe. As for his leadership qualities, well he has none.

          • Siobhan 14.1.3.1.1
            14 June 2016 at 4:30 pm

            He has great leadership qualities, starting a nation wide movement from almost scratch. Not with help, but straight out hindrance from main stream media most of the way. Just look at the way the Guardian treated him, it was quite shocking.
            I would say anyone who can inspire people for a good left cause, to the degree Sanders has and is, would make a great leader.
            Just too bad we haven’t got that same kind of grass roots, old school left anywhere on the horizon in NZ.

  15. Byd0nz 15
    13 June 2016 at 10:14 am

    When you talk about American democracy you got to emphasize the mock part, coz it’s a sham. America is a military regime, the whoever president is first and foremost Commander in chief. America has only had 13 years of peace in their history, there is no left or right. There is only military dictatorship. The US is on a permanent war footing. The Commander of chief holds the button, the only hope for the world is it will backfire when pressed and blow that land of shit out of this world

    • The New Student 15.1
      13 June 2016 at 11:41 am

      Thats the impression I got from Tom Clancy

    • Colonial Viper 15.2
      13 June 2016 at 12:27 pm

      Lots of great people and great places in the US, but their elite ruling class has been exceedingly shit for a long time.

  16. Anne 16
    13 June 2016 at 10:21 am

    The hatred , vitriol and dogged determination to paint Hillary Clinton as some kind of evil creature who – like Boadicea – will carve her path through, rapier like, anything or anyone that stands in her way of success… reminds me of the equally dogged determination in this country over many years to paint Helen Clark in a similar light.

    Interesting they should both be now standing for two of the most important ‘offices’ on this planet. They must be two truly remarkable women – whatever one may personally think of them.

  17. Stuart Munro 17
    13 June 2016 at 10:23 am

    Meh – other countries elect the strangest people. Hillary isn’t what we want but she’s a known quantity. Better than Putin – just not much better.

  18. travellerev 18
    13 June 2016 at 10:24 am

    Always makes me wonder who writes these Guest posts when it goes all out to make everybody believe that the US Democrats just like NZ Labour really are nice people and we should trust them.

    IMO, Hillary Clinton is a compulsively lying, genocidal, criminally insane psychopath. Paid for by the banksters and she will start a war with Iran and Russia if so ordered!

    Edit: Interesting observation from John Pilger

    • te reo putake 18.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:32 am

      Don’t hold back, Ev, tell us what you really think!

      As you know, guest posters here at TS can span the political spectrum, from the ‘hard’ left to the climate change denying, swivel eyed conspiracy theory ranting, racist right. As for who writes them, that’s well covered under the TS rules about pseudo-anonymity. Don’t go down that path, please.

      • dukeofurl 18.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:45 am

        The strange thing is they ‘believe all the worst rumours’, never the good stuff about Clinton.
        The list Travellerev gives can almost entirely debunked, but reality isnt his world.
        The guest post asked for ‘balance’ as though thats an alien thing

        • One Two 18.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 11:01 am

          The guest post provided no balance

          Asking for it in advance. Trite

          • weka 18.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 11:17 am

            Depends on what you mean by balance. The guest post was wanting to balance out other commentary on the site. If it had presented a completely balanced view within its own post it would have failed at that. Ts posts generally aren’t balances, they present view points and then a platform for people to argue about those viewpoints. That’s a useful balance.

            • lprent 18.1.1.1.1.1
              15 June 2016 at 1:34 am

              Indeed. That is exactly what we want. We aren’t interested in balanced posts, we’re interested in opinions and the reasoning behind them.

              Usually other authors or the commenters will provide alternate views

        • Adrian 18.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 11:39 am

          What are talking about, these are not rumors, they are facts, your problem is that you are playing personality politics.
          It is a disgrace that you would back a woman in any political position just because she is a Woman, and not on her ability and record.
          I don’t think the tens of thousands of Woman killed, maimed,displaced and raped through out the endless years of war in the Middle East, that Clinton seems to be so fond of supporting, care whether the American president is a Man or a Woman, would you in their place?
          Or just maybe would you be more interested in their proven track record on war?

          Here is your Hillary thoughts, after hearing that Gaddafi had been killed, by being publicly sodomized with a sword….
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

          [Adrian. The sodomy story is unproven and you are reaching to say that Clinton was even aware of that rumour when she was filmed. Her response may have been distasteful, but it goes too far to suggest she was laughing at the manner of his death. Keep yourself in check, please. TRP]

          • McFlock 18.1.1.2.1
            13 June 2016 at 12:00 pm

            after hearing that Gaddafi had been killed, by being publicly sodomized with a sword….

            lol

            How very Edward II, but unlikely to be true. I’m willing to stand corrected, however.

            • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.2.1.1
              13 June 2016 at 12:22 pm

              I think the sodomisation might have happened to the body after he had died

              • the pigman …
                13 June 2016 at 11:45 pm

                He was on his feet at the time, badly wounded. Videos and photos are legitimate, it was some kind of combat knife. The funny thing is I even linked to it a few days ago side-by-side the Killary scoffing video.

                TRP/McFlock scoffing without deigning to inform themselves is pretty telling, innit?

                • McFlock …
                  14 June 2016 at 12:58 pm

                  or a stick.
                  It certainly wasn’t a “sword”. And he was killed by gunshot.

                  About the only thing that’s vaguely plausible is that the item, whatever it was, was shoved in the general area of the anus. Even that’s a bit of long shot because of the shit video quality.

                  But killed by being publicly sodomised with a sword? Nope. Definitely not.

            • Adrian 18.1.1.2.1.2
              13 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

              I don’t really want to put up a link to the footage, as it is extremely disturbing,
              but if you feel you need to verify my statement go ahead and google it.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 June 2016 at 12:41 pm

                This on the other hand is almost as disgusting…Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright.

                Hilary, who will have seen the full intel report on how Gaddaffi was killed, laughing about it just beautifully.

            • One Two 18.1.1.2.1.3
              13 June 2016 at 12:39 pm

              Position taken, but with no conviction or investigation

          • weka 18.1.1.2.2
            13 June 2016 at 12:33 pm

            “It is a disgrace that you would back a woman in any political position just because she is a Woman, and not on her ability and record.”

            Trp isn’t doing that.

            There is a lot of misuse of intersectional politics happening all round at the moment. Starting to piss me off. You can make your political argument without doing that.

            • Adrian 18.1.1.2.2.1
              13 June 2016 at 12:50 pm

              Maybe I was thinking of someone else, because there is a lot of exactly that going on here.

              • weka …
                13 June 2016 at 1:32 pm

                Maybe you were, and if you want me to not repeat what I said maybe you should clarify who you were referring to. Esp as you are now claiming there is a lot of it going on.

            • adam 18.1.1.2.2.2
              13 June 2016 at 12:57 pm

              I agree weka, but the talking points are deliberate to obscure the debate at present.

              If myself or anyone else goes look at the record, that remark is continually ignored or swept under the carpet.

              If we bring up women who dislike clinton, then there is something wrong with us.

              And god forbid you mention that a women with integrity, honour, and respect is running – and the silence is deafening. Or the, you’re just silly card is pulled.

              God bless Jill Stine.

              The debate is being framed quite simply, poor poor stupid extreme lefties just don’t know what is good for them. And they should shut up and appreciate clinton like we do…

              More of the social democratic left arrogance on display, then they are left wondering why it turns off voters. Finally, they have the gall to moan about the disengagement, it is mind blowing. If it was just not so sad.

              • weka …
                13 June 2016 at 1:30 pm

                What talking points? What debate? This post? This thread? It would really help if people were more specific.

                The ‘you’re wrong to support her because she is a woman’ argument is old and tired because it contains in it the idea that women aren’t competent. Adrian used the word ‘ability’. Quotas, affirmative action, and progressing women’s rights as a class work for very specific reasons, and I’m sick of the superficial misuse of the criticisms.

                I can make the case for voting Clinton purely on gender. Roe vs Wade being the most obvious. The general criticism of people who vote Clinton because she is a woman is superficial and IMO lazy. Don’t get me wrong, people who vote Clinton over Sanders are a huge problem, but they still have reasons for voting Clinton that have political meaning. Writing them off superficially just creates more of a divide.

                As for the disappointment around social democrats, I’m with you on that and I just think that it’s possible to critique that without misusing intersectionality.

                • Adrian …
                  13 June 2016 at 2:04 pm

                  What political reasons do you think they might have in voting Clinton over sanders? I am interested to know.

                  • weka …
                    13 June 2016 at 9:14 pm

                    Some African Americans see that they will get better gains via Clinton.

                    DItto middle class liberals.

                    Some won’t understand who Sanders is. Some of those that know him will find him too radical and see Clinton as more stable.

          • Adrian 18.1.1.2.3
            13 June 2016 at 2:50 pm

            Excuse me, but this story is proven,

            http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29508.htm

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/clinton-emails-on-libya-e_b_9054182.html

            http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/35422-on-regrettable-and-false-accusations-of-censorship

            http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/

            I could go on.

            What goes to far is to even try and frame Hillary Clinton is anything but what she has actually proved herself to be, an extreme war hawk who is in the pocket of Wall st amongst others, this is just a statement of the facts as we know them.

            And, while I don’t know for sure that Hillary knew about this incident.
            I would be absolutely astounded if she didn’t, as she was being briefed
            constantly about events on the ground, according to her own (newly released) emails.
            http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

            I would appreciate it if you would remove your comment from mine, thank you.

            • McFlock 18.1.1.2.3.1
              13 June 2016 at 3:28 pm

              1: the “sodomised” story is still tenuous. Three blurred frames doesn’t mean much – except “sword” is complete bullshit. Some sources say “bayonet”, frankly it looked to me like “stick, maybe”. Not good, but mob violence never is – and it’s sure not impalement on a sword.

              2: You still haven’t demonstrated that Clinton knew anything beyond “Gaddafi is dead, it looks like” when she made with the Caesar line. Hell, working under the “priority target” bullshit, she probably thought Libya was on the way to being stabilised.

              3: most of your links mention (let alone prove) neither the impalement story nor the idea that she knew of that story when she made the comment.

              • Adrian …
                13 June 2016 at 4:20 pm

                1. My links are from reliable news sources, who, like most media sources now, state the story as fact. so far from tenuous.

                2. It is well known that nearly all top advisers to Obama had warned of the chaos that would engulf Libya, and they even speculated that there would be a strong possibility of a power vacuum, that would be filled by extremist organizations.
                So if you think “she probably thought Libya was on the way to being stabilized” it just further shows her unstable, unhinged and plain wrong analysis of foreign policies.
                http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

                There is plenty of other news stories and investigation around, google more yourself if you want more verification.

                3, I not even going to bother answering that one.

                • McFlock …
                  13 June 2016 at 4:32 pm

                  1: you had one link that contained the footage. The three slo-mo frames are open to interpretation, but I’m pretty damned sure if a sword had been inserted up to the hilt it would have been much more obvious.

                  2: that’s nice. It is also irrelevant as to whether she knew of the rumour about the sword when she made the veni vidi comment.

                  3: that’s funny, because your original comment was very specific: “Here is your Hillary thoughts, after hearing that Gaddafi had been killed, by being publicly sodomized with a sword….”.
                  Impalement: possible.
                  Sword: pretty damned doubtful.
                  Knowledge at the time she made the comment: not even vaguely indicated by any of your links.

                  • Adrian …
                    13 June 2016 at 6:33 pm

                    Oh so you want to get specific as to whether he was violated by maybe an iron bar or a sword?
                    I think I am quite happy to let you debate that one by yourself.

                    Also I said “And, while I don’t know for sure that Hillary knew about this incident”

                    However if you don’t think she did know fine, I on the other hand do, mainly because the US has the most sophisticated intelligence network the world has ever seen, so it would be only fair to assume she would have been fully briefed.

                    And anyway, just for arguments sake, let’s assume she didn’t know, what sort of way is this to react to a humans brutal death.

                    • Dennis Merwood …
                      13 June 2016 at 6:47 pm

                      …….”the US has the most sophisticated intelligence network the world has ever seen”. hahahahahaha
                      The same intelligence network that didn’t have a clue that 9/11 was going to happen, and told us about the yellow cake, and Saddams WMD.
                      Saying “Military Intelligence” is always good for a laugh in the US!

                    • McFlock …
                      13 June 2016 at 6:54 pm

                      So you think that she had the entire story delivered all at once as soon as it happened?

                      And yes, I dobelieve that it’s important to make the distinction as to what actually happened from what you initially claimed.

                      Look at it this way: a website made a doubtful conclusion based on three frames of low res cellphone footage. You linked to it and exagerrated it even further. The next person who’s equally light on the details will take “sword” and go to full hang/drawing/quartering. Three links own the line and Hillary is eating his liver, for fuck’s sake.

                      When what seems to have happened is that he was mobbed then shot (possibly by the french, but whatevs). Pretty and deserved? Nope, nor was what happened to Mussolini and his mistress. But it doesn’t turn people into the next Big Bad to be terrified of.

                      And the idea ubiquitous, instantaneous and complete iterations of the intelligence cycle is a wet dream.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 June 2016 at 6:57 pm

                      @ dennis:
                      But the perfectly efficient intelligence services were behind 911, dontcha know /sarc

                  • the pigman …
                    14 June 2016 at 1:00 am

                    1) oh-ho-ho – this is a new level of selective pedantry – don’t you see, Adrian? It’s just a metal pole/sword hilt with no blade attached! McFlock, depsite conceding he had 3 frames to go from, wants to see the pouring blood/entrails. You clearly intended to deceive people with your craaazeh unsubstantiated claim, so your distaste for HRC is now invalid!

                    Seriously Adrian, I hope you do keep coming back when you get off that ban, the feedback loop in here (where there fluid and shifting “acceptable” and “unacceptable” forms of dissent) needs some (many) circuit-breakers.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 June 2016 at 12:47 pm

                      What I actually want to see is an internet where people limit their inferences to what their links can support, rather than it being a game of whispers where what actually happened quickly becomes distorted into lascivious, surreal assertions.

                      A futile dream, admittedly, but we all can do our part to keep it real.

                      “Mobbed then shot” is still bad. It doesn’t need to be turned into death by sword-sodomy. Laughing about his death is not cool, you don’t need to invent stories about what happened or what she knew at the time. And if he had died in the way Adrian described, do you really think she would have avoided alluding to it in some way (good or bad)?

            • dukeofurl 18.1.1.2.3.2
              13 June 2016 at 4:44 pm

              Bombing of Libya – yes it was crazy

              First it was sanctioned by UN Security council and Obama was the one giving orders ( US only provided support planes , NO BOMBERS)

              United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, on march 2011
              10 votes for, 5 abstentions, non opposed

              Dont let the facts get in the way while you ride around on high horse.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 June 2016 at 5:40 pm

                Fuck off Duke, you really are a prick for misrepresenting shit.

                Nothing in that Security Council resolution approved the regime change military operation that NATO subsequently carried out, nor the NATO bombing campaign which destroyed massive portions of Libya’s civil infrastructure leading to an implosion of the society.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973#Resolution

                And from that link we have a clue as to the role of warmonger neocon Clinton:

                The arms embargo imposed by paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 would have prevented arms being supplied to anyone in Libya. However, the resolution modified resolution 1970 with the wording “all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970” if doing so would protect civilians. Hillary Clinton argued that, though arming anti-Gaddafi forces was not being proposed at the time, it would be legal to do so.[5]

              • Adrian …
                13 June 2016 at 6:16 pm

                The USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses in the opening hours of the operation.
                The US supplies munitions the the European air forces involved when they ran short, hence the large number of F-16’s used.
                Also supplied hardware for retro fitting of other aircraft to accept US munitions.

                US ran intelligence operations and tactical stations for the operations.

                So no the US did not only use support planes.

                There has also been quite serious ‘chatter’ that Britain and the US supplied al-Qaeda intelligence and weapon’s in Libya.

                I don’t think there has been any argument that Clinton tipped Obama in the decision over Libya, and from what I have read quite aggressively. So while you are right is was ultimately Obama’s decision, we are not discussing Obama today, but Clinton, and her foreign policy world view.

                And don’t bring high horses into this, stay on issues.

        • Infused 18.1.1.3
          13 June 2016 at 12:20 pm

          There is nothing good about her. She is the biggest puppet there is.

      • adam 18.1.2
        13 June 2016 at 3:50 pm

        What does “hard left” even mean?

        Of late I’ve noticed its use more to attack people. At best it’s use is misleading, at worst just another snide attack.

        • te reo putake 18.1.2.1
          13 June 2016 at 4:03 pm

          You’ll have noted that I put singular quote marks around the word hard. It’s not a term I much like, but most people get that it’s a convenient shorthand for people outside of the Parliamentary left parties, ie members of the various communist or anarchist groups. But it has been thrown at some LP members and leaders from time to time, including me.

          • adam 18.1.2.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 4:20 pm

            Just a bad term. I was impressed that it has not had much use in relation to sanders or clinton.

            As a catch all it’s daft, do notice the right trot out regularly – odd as it just makes them look stupid. As lumping anarchist or communist in the same group is very lazy thinking – and shows a staggering level of political naivety.

            Even lumping anarchists together is a nightmare of mammoth proportions. for example; are individualist anarchists —- lifestyles today, or have they flipped to anarcho-capitalism or indeed something else?

      • travellerev 18.1.3
        13 June 2016 at 6:09 pm

        First of all TRP, There is no us. There is no club I speak to. You react? It’s only you.

        Secondly I don’t know who you are referring to when you write about the the climate change denying, swivel eyed conspiracy theory ranting, racist right. Colonial Viper, Red Logic, BLiP, Adrian Thornton, Chooky to name few who seem to share my views?

        [Get a grip, Travellerev. You have your own site for for propagating bigoted bullshit. TRP]

        • travellerev 18.1.3.1
          13 June 2016 at 7:17 pm

          So you are deleting a thoroughly linked list of her crimes but that will not be allowed?

          • Colonial Viper 18.1.3.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 9:25 pm

            It seems that we are required to use a Fox News definition of “fair and balanced” with regards to considering Hillary Clinton’s record.

    • weka 18.2
      13 June 2016 at 11:14 am

      “Always makes me wonder who writes these Guest posts when it goes all out to make everybody believe that the US Democrats just like NZ Labour really are nice people and we should trust them.”

      Um, where did the post say that?

    • The New Student 18.3
      13 June 2016 at 11:42 am

      There’s opinions and then there’s facts

    • RedLogix 18.4
      13 June 2016 at 1:10 pm

      Thanks for the John Pilger link travellerev.

      Pilger is one of the relatively few relatively reliable moral compasses left in this world.

      But still I read his article as more a commentary on the US hegemonic system and how it inevitably corrupts anyone who has to operate within it. What I’m reading is that the American people have moved to repudiate this system through the course of these primaries. Both Trump and Sanders represented this ground shift, one chaotic-bad the other chaotic-good. But both standing outside the system demanding change.

      By selecting Trump the Republicans have stated their renunciation of the status quo even louder than the Democrats, who by contrast depended on a flawed system to select their insider candidate.

      In this sense the names of the insider candidates does not matter anymore. The mere fact of them coming from within the deep state means Pilger could have written the identical article about any of them. Just the title would change.

      • dukeofurl 18.4.1
        13 June 2016 at 4:56 pm

        St John Pilger!

        So thats where you all seem to get your views from. word. by. word.

        • RedLogix 18.4.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 5:19 pm

          We all get our views from somewhere dof. Even you. None of us stand alone. My model of the world is not fixed and it draws on many sources, and yes Pilger is one of them.

          Not because I ever think anyone individual has an omniscient monopoly on truth or morality … but because over time they earn respect for their consistent integrity, intellectual honesty and humane values. This doesn’t mean they will always be right, but it does mean that if you want to discard their work it is not done lightly or without good reason.

          To extend the ‘moral compass’ metaphor I used above; as an experienced tramper let me assure you that even the very best compasses are useless on their own. You need a map as well, and you need to pay attention to what you are observing and sensing.

          Compasses can be biased by unseen distortions, maps can be wrong or out of date, and the landscape can be confusing or hidden in clouds. But by paying attention to all the sources of information you have it is almost always possible to avoid getting lost.

    • Chooky 18.5
      13 June 2016 at 3:44 pm

      lol…+100 travellerev…and I have to agree with Pilger….

      and anyone who thinks Clinton is a role model for women and women’s rights is deluded or ignorant

      to compare Clinton with Helen Clark or Boadicea is to insult these women

  19. Augustus 19
    13 June 2016 at 10:29 am

    Here we have the typical usage of statistics in politics. Hilary tells the truth 80 % of the time. Hooray. The grass is green, the sky is blue, the pope’s a catholic, water is wet, the economy works great for everyone. 80 % of that is true. It’s not just quantity that matters. Her worst decisions are where it matters, as Adrian Thornton spells out.

  20. Reality 20
    13 June 2016 at 10:36 am

    Anne, yes, despite what many men might deny, there are many men who just cannot accept a woman in a position of power, particularly a strong powerful personality. I well remember that Helen Clark as a woman prime minister was picked on in every way imaginable. Likewise there are many white Americans who never and still don’t accept their black president.

    No presidential candidate wil be perfect but hopefully they will not suffer from insanity.

    • Vinnie 20.1
      13 June 2016 at 10:45 am

      Who is making that argument here, and how do you explain the points that Adrian listed.

    • Anne 20.2
      13 June 2016 at 11:48 am

      No presidential candidate wil be perfect but hopefully they will not suffer from insanity.

      Keep your fingers crossed because there’s one presidential candidate who is a blatant psychopath and it isn’t Hillary Clinton.

      • One Two 20.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 12:02 pm

        Anne, and with the utmost of respect…

        If you believe that Trump is a psychopath, while simultaneously believing Hillary is not the equivalent, then you are exhibiting irrational bias, are not well informed or are delusional

  21. weka 21
    13 June 2016 at 10:43 am

    Well written and well argued post red-blooded, thanks. I don’t know to what extent I agree with your points, but I do agree that it’s useful to challenge some of the rhetoric expressed on ts and I like how you’ve approached this.

    Myself, I don’t think that Clinton outright lying 28% of the time makes her trustworthy, and I suspect that compared to NZ standards overall she is pretty untrustworthy, but that’s US politics. I haven’t looked at the way trustworthy is being established either, but I’d guess there is a judgement call being made on whether it’s ok for politicians to manipulate the truth without outright lying.

    In the vid that CV links above, the Clinton woman is appalling. I have no idea if she is telling bald lies, but I can tell she speaks with a forked tongue and I wouldn’t trust her. Even more obvious alongside the woman who is challenging Clinton support because she is speaking truth. So there’s that, the issue of whether a person can tell the truth truthfully or whether they need to spin the shit out of everything. Clinton is in the latter camp, and to what extent she had choices about that vs this is what the system made her I don’t know.

    (I also think that anyone who believes that Trump as president wouldn’t have an appalling foreign policy is naive).

    • Adrian 22.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:17 pm

      So your “balance” is sourced from

      1. Hillary’s own web site; doesn’t count of course.
      2. Hilary Rosen; a known lobbyist not only for Clinton but for BP amongst others.
      http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/04/15/white-house-hilary-rosen-lobbying/
      3.USN News; owned by Mortimer Benjamin Zuckerman, Chairman of heavy hitting Israeli Lobby groups.
      http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mortimer_Benjamin_Zuckerman

      So really you have just damaged Hillary even further, although to be fair that is pretty hard not to do. She has so many skeletons in the closet, that every door you open has the possibility to unearth just one more of her piece of her dodgee story.

      Next time you post….take more time.

      • te reo putake 22.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 12:25 pm

        Meh. They’re just the first few results of a quick google search. The point is the information they contain, which shows that Hillary Clinton has actually achieved quite a lot of good in her 40 years of public service. The frothing about her supposed neo con links and calling her Killary etc.ignores reality. Which is that she’s clearly the better person of the two available choices.

        And telling me what to write or how to go about doing it is going to end in you taking more time … on the sidelines. Don’t do it again.

        • Vinnie 22.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 12:37 pm

          Adrian’s point is valid, the links you posted are poor quality.

          He hit you up about it, included a little banter (not uncommon in the comments section) and you should be able to handle it even if you are a moderator or what ever.

          [I handle banter perfectly well, Vinnie. What I dislike is people telling me what to write, how to write or how I should behave as an author and moderator. Take a week off. TRP]

        • Adrian 22.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 12:38 pm

          Hey all I am just saying if you are going to defend somebody, maybe you should do your homework.
          These links you gave us have no credibility whatsoever.
          I am very interested to hear your defense of Hillary.

        • Adrian 22.1.1.3
          13 June 2016 at 6:37 pm

          [Bye. See you next week. TRP]

          • MATAI 22.1.1.3.1
            13 June 2016 at 7:29 pm

            This looks like:

            “I’ve been challenged…
            argue, or ban?
            …Ban!”

            The debate is the poorer for it and as a regular reader and non-commenter just makes it look like this is all delving further into a shit-pit.

              • siobhan …
                13 June 2016 at 8:16 pm

                Can you please copy and paste the passage in The Standards policy’s where it shows what, in Vinnie comment, have broken those policy’s.
                Vinnie doesn’t seem to be telling you to do anything.

                • te reo putake …
                  13 June 2016 at 8:24 pm

                  Nope. But re-read what I wrote in his comment and don’t succumb to the temptation to lawyer it.

                  • MATAI …
                    13 June 2016 at 8:31 pm

                    again, as a reader…
                    you’ve just wielded the big authority stick at the expense of the debate that was going on

                    • te reo putake …
                      13 June 2016 at 8:44 pm

                      Tough. There’s an easy lesson here; when a moderator asks you to tone it down, tone it down.

                    • siobhan …
                      13 June 2016 at 8:45 pm

                      Yes I agree, lots of authoritarian stick waving going on here.
                      On The Standard of all places, the irony of it is almost unbelievable.

                      [lprent: If people don’t like being warned about their poor behaviour, then they shouldn’t come here. After all you might get me moderating rather than TRP, and my attitude is more in the order of getting simply getting rid of fools who prefer whine about the site rather than point raised for as long as possible. ]

                    • te reo putake []
                      13 June 2016 at 8:51 pm

                      “on the Standard of all places …” LOL, you must be new round here. Or trolling.

                    • weka …
                      13 June 2016 at 8:53 pm

                      I’d suggest taking discussion about moderating to Open Mike. It might not stop trp banning you at no notice but it will lessen the impact on this thread, which is also an important part of moderation.

  23. Richardrawshark 23
    13 June 2016 at 11:47 am

    You want balance, She looks hot there, i’d tap that. 🙂

    • mauī 23.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:36 pm

      I guess that comment proves the “sexism” tag at the top of the page really was appropriate.

  24. Bill 24
    13 June 2016 at 11:53 am

    Raise the bar!

    Minnie Mouse for President.

    • adam 24.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:13 pm

      No, we need a president we can relate to

      Olive Oil for president!!!

      • Bill 24.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 12:48 pm

        But Minnie Mouse gets more fan mail!

        • adam 24.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 1:04 pm

          That just means she appeals to a younger demographic.

          • Bill 24.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 1:13 pm

            I heard she’s hitting all demographics. Plagarising here*, but – Minnie Mouse’s got it all sewn up. She gets more fan mail than the pope…. Roll up…roll up… 😉

            *Life is a Minestrone

            • weka 24.1.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2016 at 1:37 pm

              I’m very disappointed to see you two are in fact closet supporters of one the global overlords of capitalism. What’s the world coming to?

  25. red-blooded 25
    13 June 2016 at 12:04 pm

    A couple of general comments:
    1) I wrote this guest post in response to some pretty extreme comments and claims being made on TS in recent times (in particular, on the thread about “HC1 and HC2”).
    2) If you read my post, you’ll see that I’m actually quite ambivalent about Clinton. I’m simply challenging the ridiculous extremes of those who argue that she’s no better (or worse) than Trump.
    3) In particular, I’ve focused on the accusations about lying. Check out the links.

    As for “who write these guest posts?”, I’ve been commenting on TS for years (although I go through phases, in terms of active involvement). Looking at the info section of the site, it says “If you want to try a post or two as a guest poster then send them to Contribute Post. If they are readable, then they will often get posted. If you are any good, then you might get given a login if enough current moderators don’t disagree.” I sent in a post. If you want to send in a post, write one and send it in.

    Right, back to work…

    • dukeofurl 25.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:08 pm

      Thanks very much, it needed to be said.
      maybe another along these lines

      “Even though Sanders markets himself as an “independent socialist,” in fact, he has rarely dissented against the Democratic Party orthodoxy, especially when it comes to military intervention.”

      That applies to all those running for election in US and does concern many

      • Adrian 25.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 12:40 pm

        Hey all I am just saying if you are going to defend somebody, maybe you should do your homework.
        These links you gave us have no credibility whatsoever.
        I am very interested to hear your defense of Hillary.

        • weka 25.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 1:40 pm

          Can you please learn to use the right reply button? It’s generally taken here that you are refering to the comment you replied to.

    • r0b 25.2
      13 June 2016 at 12:09 pm

      Excellent advice! I started out here by sending in guest posts (2008 or 2009 from memory)….

    • Anne 25.3
      13 June 2016 at 5:03 pm

      … I’m actually quite ambivalent about Clinton. I’m simply challenging the ridiculous extremes of those who argue that she’s no better (or worse) than Trump.

      My thoughts exactly and it all needed to be said at this site. Thanks red blooded.

      To equate Hillary Clinton with Trump is profoundly sad and suggests those who do so are no better than say… the crazy Tea Party who laid the ground work for this dire circumstance America finds itself in.

  26. Infused 26
    13 June 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Hillary or Trump. Both ways the US is getting fucked.

    Trump however, will bring some needed change imo.

    • mpledger 26.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:43 pm

      I don’t think so. He has no support amongst the Republican hierarchy other than to get elected – once president they will do everything they can to impede him and make him look bad while pushing the power of the Republicans in congress.

      They won’t let anything of Trumps go through unless it’s batshit crazy and will make him look bad; but they’ll do bat shit crazy stuff themselves and make him look bad when he has to reject it. They’ve done it for Obama for 8 years, what’s another 4.

  27. adam 27
    13 June 2016 at 12:16 pm

    Ever get the feeling both are as evil and corrupt as each other (hilary and donald), and to buy into this debate just makes you as evil and corrupt as the system which produces people like this.

    Just an observation

    • weka 27.1
      13 June 2016 at 1:45 pm

      Lesser of evils still has meaning though. The main argument I’ve heard from pro-Trump lefties is to do with foreign policy, specifically invasions. But that’s not really lined up against the good things that Clinton will do and that Trump won’t do, or the really shit things that Trump will do, and how all that will play long term.

      There’s a whole conversation about how we value the lives of women that we haven’t even gotten to yet.

      • adam 27.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 3:36 pm

        Anybody who calls themselves left and supports trump – needs their head examined.

        I don’t buy into lesser of two evil – when evil is the only dish being served, you are morally bound to oppose it.

        “There’s a whole conversation about how we value the lives of women that we haven’t even gotten to yet.”

        I don’t think this conversation can start, not when people seem to have themselves embed in the duality of left/right, democrat/republican. Women are nothing but an add on to the debate when we stuck with that type of ridged thinking.

        • Colonial Viper 27.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 5:33 pm

          Well I back Trump from the standpoint that I believe that he is less likely to initiate a shooting war in the Pacific with Russia and China, something of utmost importance to the safety of NZ.

          • RedLogix 27.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 5:45 pm

            And as much as that logic appalls me, it’s kind of hard to refute.

            For all his offensive bluster, arrogance and execrable ignorance … at least Trump has explicitly stated that he is very much against more US foreign military mis-adventures.

            We do tend to forget that the USA also has a long history of isolationism; it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into both WW1 and WW2 and remained very ambivalent about Korea and Vietnam. It was only in the neo-con era that sustained militarism became the norm.

            Trump’s position in this respect largely echoes the view of many prior generations of US politicians.

            • te reo putake 27.1.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2016 at 6:06 pm

              “It was only in the neo-con era that sustained militarism became the norm.”

              Not according to Dwight Eisenhower who famously identified the military industrial complex in 1961. btw, America was pretty damn keen on both Korea and Vietnam. Opposing the latter wasn’t much of a popular pastime until the mid to late sixties, particularly when Nixon bought in the draft in 69.

              • RedLogix …
                13 June 2016 at 6:18 pm

                I guess we can both quibble the nuances of Korea and Vietnam, the latter more especially.

                My thinking was based on the idea that post-WW2 while the USA did see itself as the global hegemon locked into a Cold War confrontation with communism, it was tempered by a sentiment that saw them somewhat reluctantly taking a posture as the ‘world’s policeman’, intervening in specific projects where necessary.

                Post the Cold War however the neo-cons far from reaching out to build a multi-polar world order to reap a ‘peace dividend, doubled-down to project the USA as the global super-power intended to permanently dominate the global military landscape.

                I agree it is probably not easy to draw a neat line between the two era’s, but this what I had in mind.

                • te reo putake …
                  13 June 2016 at 6:22 pm

                  Fair call. I think the last twenty years have locked the US into a self defeating spiral of war that is encouraged and abetted by the military contractor industry. There’s huge money to be made from war, especially if you sell to all sides.

            • KJT 27.1.1.1.1.2
              13 June 2016 at 9:41 pm

              Spanish American war. The origin of the “Banana” republics.

              War with Mexico. US colonisation.

              And don’t forget Custer.

        • weka 27.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 9:09 pm

          “I don’t buy into lesser of two evil – when evil is the only dish being served, you are morally bound to oppose it.”

          So what would you do if you could vote in the election?

          “There’s a whole conversation about how we value the lives of women that we haven’t even gotten to yet.”

          I don’t think this conversation can start, not when people seem to have themselves embed in the duality of left/right, democrat/republican. Women are nothing but an add on to the debate when we stuck with that type of ridged thinking.

          Sorry, but that just sounds like another version of women being told their issues will get addressed after the revolution. There is no revolution without intersectionality.

          • adam 27.1.1.2.1
            13 June 2016 at 9:28 pm

            No not at all – look were the conversation that went above weka. What point they run with.

            I agree “There’s a whole conversation about how we value the lives of women that we haven’t even gotten to yet.” is the most important one – now not in the future.

            Sorry if you read it as after the revolution comment, my fault – I was as clear as mud. It should have read that within a thread which is essentially dualism – issues of intersectionality just won’t gain traction.

            So start one point

            A debate we should be having is where is the intersectionality with male incarceration and the problems with women who are left holding the families together. A comparison between the USA and NZ, as we seem to be following there model. I know some of the fine women I speak to in the USA have husbands doing time – They do it hard. This is one of the reasons I think clinton is evil by the way. As bush was evil as well, plus all who became before him, with their juvenile plan of locking up more and more people.

            • weka 27.1.1.2.1.1
              13 June 2016 at 9:53 pm

              thanks for clarifying adam 🙂

              • adam …
                13 June 2016 at 10:05 pm

                As for fighting evil – well I talk to a lot of Americans, via gaming and groups I’m involved with. And I’m slow but steady on that – that said, quite a few of the younger generation understand socialism very well. And are aware of many of it’s pitfalls, which impresses me every time I talk to them. They are also aware that something is rotten in the state of the USA.

                So for me, I think the USA Greens have a good approach, yes they are running a candidate – One who I respect immensely Jill Stein.

                http://www.jill2016.com/

                They are working to generate a red green movement. And to some degree ignoring the politics as usual, and doing their own thing. They work well across the red/green spectrum quite well.

                My hope, that many of the Bernie supporters will move towards the Greens, and see the only option is opposition to the evil which is the american establishment.

  28. NZJester 28
    13 June 2016 at 12:23 pm

    Shillery is part of the establishment there and represents a party elite far closer to our National party than our Labour party. Bernie Sanders is the better choice. The dirty tricks that have been played against him in the media there and at poling places by Hillery supporters in the DNC would make Nationals dirty tricks people jealous.
    She will have a close race beating Trump. Bernie Sanders on the other hand polls way above Trump and wants to offer a better deal for American.
    He is a Jewish man who has huge Muslim support and is willing to talk to all parties to try and get peace in the middle east.

    • red-blooded 28.1
      13 June 2016 at 12:39 pm

      How is this relevant? Bernie Sanders is not going to get the nomination. The choice is between Clinton and Trump (a man who wants to ban Muslims from entering the US).

      • Dennis Merwood 28.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 7:02 pm

        Red-blooded, how do you know that Bernie Sanders is not going to get the (Democratic Party) nomination? Can you tell the future? The delegate vote is not scheduled until July 25th….I think I got that date right.
        The “Queen of Chaos” could crash and burn before then.
        This would be the best outcome for the US, the World, and little ole New Zeelind!

    • red-blooded 28.2
      13 June 2016 at 2:48 pm

      BTW, while we’re talking about differing attitudes to powerful women and powerful men, comments like, “Shillery is part of the establishment” are a perfect example of how women get vilified and accused of being either shrill, emasculating, too masculine… whatever.

      • adam 28.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 3:39 pm

        donald dumpf is really a nagging pain…

      • Colonial Viper 28.2.2
        13 June 2016 at 5:32 pm

        Bullshit, Clinton is a shill for banksters and billionaires clear and simple, hence the name Shillary (and the name Killary) suit her to a tee.

  29. johnm 29
    13 June 2016 at 12:29 pm

    I leave it to a respected American Stephen Lendman to assess Hillary Clinton:

    The Democratic Party Has Destroyed Itself. Will It Now Destroy The Rest Of Us?
    June 10, 2016

    The Democratic Party Has Destroyed Itself. Will It Now Destroy The Rest Of Us?

    War Party Leader Obama Endorses War Goddess Clinton

    by Stephen Lendman

    Obama, Clinton and bipartisan neocons infesting Washington explain the deplorable state of America today – a democracy in name only, enriching the privileged few at the expense of most others, waging endless wars on humanity, leaving its fate up for grabs.

    Clinton was chosen Democrat party nominee last year before primary/caucus season began, assuring endless wars of aggression if elected, perhaps the madness of confronting Russia and China belligerently.

    The possibility of her succeeding Obama should terrify everyone, heightening the risk of global war with super-weapons making WW II ones look like toys by comparison. ( Including the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, my comment )

    On Thursday, Obama made it official, endorsing Clinton for president, one war criminal supporting another, both wanting all challengers to US hegemony eliminated, planet earth colonized, its resources stolen, it people exploited as serfs.

    After meeting with Sanders on Thursday, a video he recorded days earlier congratulated Clinton for “making history” – saying “I’m with her. I am fired up and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign for Hillary.”

    “She’s got the courage, the compassion and the heart to get the job done. I have seen her judgment. I’ve seen her toughness. I’ve seen her commitment to our values up close…I don’t think there’s ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.”

    Demagogic doublespeak/Big Lies can’t conceal the enormous harm he and Clinton caused millions of people worldwide – at home and abroad.

    Francis Boyle calls her “a psychopath and a war criminal.” James Petras said she’s “a proven political psychopath.”

    Her finger on the nuclear trigger risks the unthinkable, a she devil committed to endless wars, mass slaughter and destruction, a lunatic unfit for any public office – a racketeer/war criminal belonging in prison.

    Expect Sanders to suspend his campaign and formally endorse her at a moment of his choosing – yesterday nearly making it official, saying “I am going to do everything in my power and I will work as hard as I can to make sure that Donald Trump does not become president of the United States.”

    He told Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D. NV) he’ll wind down his campaign ahead – beginning after next week’s District of Columbia primary, the finale of a long, torturous pre-convention political season.

    His rhetoric about supporting a progressive America is hollow. His deplorable public record proves otherwise – saying one thing, doing another.

    Throughout his House and Senate years, he voted 98% of the time with fellow democrats, most often backing imperial wars, too often supporting legislation benefitting wealth and privilege at the expense of populism.

    Expect him to endorse Clinton pre-convention, likely in days, claiming it’s to keep Trump from becoming president.

    He’ll likely be offered and willingly accept a high-level position in her administration, perhaps as her running mate – his final betrayal of supporters if things turn out this way.

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

    His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

    http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html
    Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  30. Enviro Gal 30
    13 June 2016 at 12:34 pm

    A valuable story , all women who have been in politics know about sexism.
    It seems to me that in governance women have the toughest glass ceiling of all
    and yes society continue to defend male power strongly.
    I only have admiration for the liberal women making the commitment
    as I feel that they have to be twice as good as men to get elected.

    • KJT 30.1
      13 June 2016 at 9:47 pm

      I tend towards the view that women in politics have to be twice as brutal as the men, to get chosen for the positions. Especially in anti-social parties like National, or both the US Parties.

      Hekia Parata and Paula Bennet spring to mind. Having to be more brutal than Brownlee.

  31. johnm 31
    13 June 2016 at 12:45 pm

    If Trump becomes US president, there is some possibility, perhaps, that the neoconservatives will cease to dominate US foreign and military policies. Should this turn out to be the case, the Russian nationalists might ease their pressure on Putin to remove the Atlanticist Integrationists from the government.

    If Hillary becomes US president, the neoconservative threat to Russia will escalate. The Atlanticist Integrationists will be eliminated from the Russian government, and Russia will move to full war standing.

    Remember what an unprepared Russia did to the German Wehrmacht, at that time the most powerful army ever assembled. Imagine what a prepared Russia would do to the crazed Hillary and the incompetent neoconservatives.

    As I have previously written, pushing Russia to war means the demise of the US and Europe and, considering the destructive power of nuclear weapons, most likely of all life on earth.

    The main cause of this danger is the arrogance, hubris, and utter stupidity of the American neoconservatives who are ensconced in positions of power and influence and in Hillary’s presidential campaign. A secondary cause is Europe’s vassal status, which deprives Europe of a sensible foreign policy and forces Europe to enable Washington’s aggression.

    What this means is that no matter what you think of Trump, if you vote for Hillary you are definitely voting for the end of the world.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/05/24/will-the-november-us-presidential-election-bring-the-end-of-the-world-paul-craig-roberts/

    • johnm 31.1
      13 June 2016 at 1:07 pm

      Everybody knew that the awful day would come when the Queen of Chaos, the Empress of Ineptitude, would become the Democratic Party’s “presumptive” nominee.

      It did last Tuesday. Wall Streeters, Cold Warriors, “humanitarian” interveners, Zionist settler supporters, and other assorted miscreants can now rejoice!

      Add to that list those who think that, at last, little girls can grow up thinking that the “glass ceiling” is gone – as if it wasn’t already by 1984, when Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro to run as his Vice President.

      Even the most retrograde right-wingers understand this: how else to explain the Sarah Palin cult? It is only liberal ladies of a certain age that are married to their nonsense.

      In truth, Hillary’s problem has never been that she is a woman; it is that she is the woman she is.

      But compelling evidence and sound arguments are useless in the face of ideologically fixed ideas; and so, the Gloria Steinem types are happy too. However, for everyone whose moral compass is sound and whose head is screwed on right, this final “super Tuesday” was, and always will be, a day of infamy.

      Blame those infernal super-delegates, the potentates of the lesser evil party. The Clintons helped make them what they are; now Hillary is reaping the rewards.

      Blame Donald Trump too. Thanks to him, Hillary — though broadly, deeply, and justifiably despised — is bound to become the next President of the United States. Only divine intervention can stop her now.

      This spells trouble ahead, just as surely as would the prospect of a President Trump. The difference is that that Trump only has a theoretical chance of becoming President, while a Clinton presidency is all but inevitable.

      There is nothing to do about it now either: except worry. Barack Obama’s fondness for “targeted” killings and special ops assassinations seems limitless. But at least he is wary of bombing civilian populations to smithereens, and of sending in the troops. Hillary is not wary at all; she has one of the itchiest trigger fingers around.

      With her as Commander-in-Chief, Obama will be sorely missed.

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/10/hillarys-victory-and-next-to-last-hurrah/

      • dukeofurl 31.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 3:54 pm

        Clinton won 16mill votes to Sanders 12 mill

        Super delegates arent responsible for Clintons lead. Can you count as well as you can cut and paste.

        • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 6:50 pm

          Sanders would trounce Trump in the real election while Hillary is going to come off second best.

          So mate yes Hillary can win this battle while losing the war.

        • Matthew Whitehead 31.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 8:27 pm

          It’s kinda irrelevant to tally primary votes directly because a lot of caucus-goers aren’t counted as voters. You are right that Hillary inarguably won in pledged delegates, although she needed to resort to a LOT of establishment shenanigans to do so.

          (eg. the outright theft of delegates that happened in Nevada, Debbie Wasserman-Schulz scheduling debates at times people don’t watch, and the funneling of money ostensibly raised for state democratic parties into Hillary’s campaign)

          There’s also the fact that superdelegates were counted as sure votes by most US media (which they definitely aren’t! We only need to go back to the ’08 democratic primary to see that) throughout the whole primary, (and none of them showed only pledged delegates, which are the actual votes that OUGHT to matter…) which has probably contributed to Sander’s disadvantage in pledged delegates.

          While superdelegates themselves aren’t responsible for the difference, arguably better reporting on what superdelegates are and the fact that they arguably shouldn’t decide who the nominee is might have swung the primary very significantly.

    • Dennis Merwood 31.2
      13 June 2016 at 1:50 pm

      John, thanks for posting Stephen Lendman’s blog “War Party Leader Obama Endorses War Goddess Clinton” . As an American visiting your fine country, it is shocking to me to see so many Kiwi posters on this blog posturing that Hillary Clinton is anything other than a dangerous politician committed to endless wars, mass slaughter and destruction, and a lunatic unfit for any public office.
      The only thing I can think of is, since these New Zealanders do not live in the US, and can only form their opinions on what they read or see on TV, they have been skillfully hoodwinked into their point of view by the mainstream media.
      Sadly, the US mainstream media, (and the English Guardian as well), have long ago decided that Hillary is their girl. Their efforts to marginalize Bernie Sanders, and coronate Hillary Clinton, will go down in history alongside their efforts to convince us that Saddam Hussein had WMD.
      I’m aware that these Kiwi posters to this blog have access to many fine blogs such as Stephen Lendman’s and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, but somehow these blogs are not being successful in getting the truth out about how evil this woman is.
      As an American this is truly frightening. Not only the poor American people going to be hoodwinked again. It seems that the Kiwi’s are as well.
      This American will never vote for the “Queen of Chaos”. I just can’t do that in all good conscience, and for my kids and grandkids sake. If Hillary is the candidate for those of us on the left, I will vote for Jill Stein, of the Greens. A wasted vote, I know. But I cannot vote for WWIII.

      • Lanthanide 31.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 3:08 pm

        “it is shocking to me to see so many Kiwi posters on this blog posturing that Hillary Clinton is anything other than a dangerous politician committed to endless wars, mass slaughter and destruction, and a lunatic unfit for any public office.”

        She’s merely reflecting the voting public.

        • Matthew Whitehead 31.2.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 9:05 pm

          Is she though? Remember, this has been studied by US political scientists, and they reached the conclusion that by and large US politicians are unresponsive to what the public wants, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Mrs Clinton fell into that camp.

      • Ad 31.2.2
        13 June 2016 at 4:22 pm

        You need to admit that you are a pretty thin minority of opinion in the US, if you oppose Obama, Trump, and Clinton.

        • mauī 31.2.2.1
          13 June 2016 at 5:25 pm

          Voter turnout for the last 3 US presidential elections = 55.7%, 57.1%, 54.9%.

          Can the 100+ million people who don’t vote be counted as a thin minority…?

    • Chooky 31.3
      13 June 2016 at 7:40 pm

      +100 johnm…well said

  32. Yup 32
    13 June 2016 at 1:39 pm

    I think this interview with Tariq Ali says it all about why people should be very scared of Hillary and why the center left right are both shit partys for anyone who isnt part of the elite 1%.

    Tariq Ali exclusive interview.
    “The elites who have run the United States and western Europe have proven incapable of offering even the smallest palliatives to their populations. They have allowed the poor to rot ‒ regardless of skin color ‒ and grow,” Ali said. “And so what we have is a protest against this center elite, which I call the extreme center because whether it’s social democratic or conservative, they unite to crush.”

    https://www.rt.com/usa/346259-tariq-ali-on-contact/

  33. Siobhan 33
    13 June 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Has anyone talked about her role in Honduras yet?…I found Democracy Nows coverage quite interesting, and possibly even more so in light of those thinking that Clintons being a woman is in any way relevant.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled

    • dukeofurl 33.1
      13 June 2016 at 3:52 pm

      DO you even care about Honduras ?
      There was NO role of Clinton in the coup

      The accusation is she supported the coup

      No she didnt.

      The US , as Clinton has explained could use the ‘coup’ word , as that would mean immediate suspension of all US aid to the country. But to interfere, to put back a desposed President ( how exactly?) what would that achieve. have a civil war.

      Im sure you have no interest in Honduras other than picking up vague links on the internet.
      Can you even say in your own words what is happening in Honduras this year. Of course not

      • siobhan 33.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 5:05 pm

        Do I care about Honduras..well I don’t live there, but ‘Yes’ i do care about people, and I agree, that unlike you, I do not have first hand knowledge of the country, hence the link, to a news organization quoting from people who do have first hand knowledge, given that they live there.

        I am, of course, very interested to know your sources that indicate Clintons lack of involvement in Honduras, and any explanations you may have as to how people ‘on the ground’, so to speak, are so wrong in their claims about Clinton.

        • Colonial Viper 33.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 5:12 pm

          It was another State Department soft coup/colour revolution operation. And she was in charge of the State Department at the time.

    • adam 33.2
      13 June 2016 at 9:48 pm

      Siobhan, I missed Berta Cáceres – reminding me of her assassination, is so dam depressing. She was a wonderful women, her use of peaceful protest and challenges to the corporations were stuff of legend. Years she helped organise the protest against the dams. I first heard of her via an interview with her on teleSUR English, and was mightily impressed.

      Just reading the transcript, is depressing as well. We don’t really get good coverage here in NZ what happens in South America. I’ve been trying to talk to friends in Brazil about what has happened there – but they seemed to have fallen of the face of the earth.

      That said,

      Ignore dukefurl, he dribbles a lot. He has a hard time with nuance and facts – among other things…

  34. Once was Tim 34
    13 June 2016 at 3:08 pm

    So far, I’ve just skimmed your post, but I’ll re-read, and possibly withdraw and apologoise in future.
    …… “so” (trendy meaningless preface), is what you’re advocating is that we continue to vote for the least worst option. Pardon the cynicism, but that is exektery what the polpulace is pissed off with (going forwid).
    It’s also why the bullshit artists and ticket clippers are now fearing the electorate (by which I mean those that ekshully vote), and are beginning to panic.
    It’s why the Todd McClays find democracy inconvenient and are advocating corporatism (“some say” a synonym for fascism – but we couldn’t possibly say that could we?).
    Compromise – FINE!
    But not when it ‘compromises’ basic human rights over corporate want, or when it sacrifices the very principles under the “brand” you campaign on, or when it’s regressive – or basically just FOOKED.
    There seems to be this inability to just see the fucking bleeding obvious at times – and its usually by those within their own self-created ‘bubbles’ – be it media, be it Thorndon, be it whatever (maybe , (for example) the engineering/road construtcting/public-servant coal face looking at self survival with highly-paid and incompetent boss-men; or Mo Bee; or MPI ….. etc etc)
    I bet there are still Labour apparchicks (possibly such as yourself??) that are still wondering WHY there’s been low voter turnout huh?

    Mr Guest Post/or Ms Red Blooded – I think what you’re advocating (on first read) is the status quo/kicking that rather crumped/slave-labour created can of sugar down the road – and even the ability for its creators to sue any gubbamint that doesn;t let them do so.

    (Like I said tho’ – I’ll re-read, and apologise if necessary)

  35. Chris 35
    13 June 2016 at 3:22 pm

    “I also happen to agree…that we should celebrate the social shift that is slowly allowing strong women to step forward into leadership roles (a different kind of revolution).”

    Like the revolution brought by Shipley and Richardson in the 1990s? Surely that’s a revolution we don’t want?

    • red-blooded 35.1
      13 June 2016 at 4:05 pm

      Have a look at the actual statement, Chris. I didn’t refer to the ’80’s-90’s social policies (started in this country by – wow – a cabal of men), I referred to the “quiet revolution” that’s very slowly (far too slowly) opening up positions of power to women and actually, I think we women (yes, I am “Ms Blogger”) DO want that revolution and are bloody sick of people making excuses for why we shouldn’t!

      You can name a few (maybe even many) female politicians whose values and decisions you disagree with. So what? I can name many more male politicians who I think have been shits, and yet I believe men have just as much right as women to step into the political ring and take on positions of power. The fact is, women have been pushed aside, cut out from taking an active role in decisions about them and their bodies (let alone the many other huge political issues that define all of our lives), vilified and disempowered for long enough.

      Note, I haven’t argued that people should support Clinton because she’s a woman. What I have said is that it’s good to see (finally) that a woman has a chance at a position like this. There’s a difference.

      • Mike Smith 35.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 4:58 pm

        80s-90s social policies started in this country by a cabal of men!!! – It was Ruth Richardson and Jenny Shipley who brought in the 1991 Mother of All Budgets together with the cut in benefits and the Employment Contracts Act that sent inequality in New Zealand soaring.

        • red-blooded 35.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 5:45 pm

          Have you never heard of Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble, Mike? And, by the way, Shipley wasn’t PM in the early 90’s – that was Jim Bolger. Shipley only held the post briefly, before being ousted by Helen Clark.

          • Mike Smith 35.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 9:29 pm

            Shipley was Minister of Social Welfare in 1991 when benefits were cut savagely in Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of all budgets.’

          • Mike Smith 35.1.1.1.2
            13 June 2016 at 9:29 pm

            Shipley was Minister of Social Welfare in 1991 when benefits were cut savagely in Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of all budgets.’

            • Chris 35.1.1.1.2.1
              14 June 2016 at 7:36 pm

              Yes, but they were given the green light by the Douglas/Prebble brigade. The MOAB certainly had its way paved quite nicely for it by the previous Labour government.

        • KJT 35.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 9:54 pm

          It was the Lange Labour Government, of men such as Douglas, who made Bolger, (Bolger was a male, last time I looked) Shipley’s and Richardson’s further demolition of New Zealand society possible.

        • KJT 35.1.1.3
          13 June 2016 at 9:55 pm

          It was the Lange Labour Government, of men such as Douglas, who made Bolger, (Bolger was a male, last time I looked) Shipley’s and Richardson’s further demolition of New Zealand society possible.

          As I said above. Competing with the men to be more brutal.

      • Adrian 35.1.2
        13 June 2016 at 4:59 pm

        I guess the tragedy is that the first black US president has failed, as will the first female US president, but I take your overall point, Hillary has broken the ceiling, so maybe a real progressive women like Jill Stein or Elizabeth Warren could make it next time.

        Just to bad the ceiling wasn’t broken by a woman who could have made us all proud to have supported her, instead of Clinton, whom not many can, and with very good reason.

      • Chris 35.1.3
        13 June 2016 at 5:28 pm

        Yes, I saw that that wasn’t what you were saying and hesitated a couple of times before commenting for that reason. I just think there’s more to consider before celebrating the fact there’s a woman candidate in the US presidential election. We could’ve celebrated Shipley and Richardson being part of a social shift of strong women stepping forward into leadership roles, too, and I guess many did, particularly those who endorsed their politics. But there you go, there’s more needed, perhaps knowing what someone represents, that needs consideration before any kind of celebration can begin.

    • Dennis Merwood 35.2
      13 June 2016 at 6:16 pm

      I see that Ms. Shipley endorsed Hillary Clinton today.
      She is happy I guess for Hillary to join the club of past neocon females who have wrecked our society.
      Ms Shipley and Richardson. Susan Rice, Samantha Powel, Thatcher, Condi Rice, Victoria Nuland……all a bunch of neocon maniacs.

      [General warning. There have been too many comments that have crossed the line in this post. I’m going to be looking out for further comments that imply or directly state that individual women or groups of women are evil or have mental health issues or use other terms of denigration. TRP]

    • Colonial Viper 36.1
      13 June 2016 at 5:26 pm

      Super Predator…Also known as an MQ9 Reaper. Plenty of drone attacks killing foreign civilians during Clinton’s reign.

      • Cemetery Jones 36.1.1
        14 June 2016 at 11:30 am

        Plenty of drone attacks, and not a Serbian sniper in sight! I can imagine more than a few Libyans looking back on Hillary’s ‘super predator’ interview and wondering who the real super predator is!

  37. Enviro Gal 37
    13 June 2016 at 5:21 pm

    Adrian,
    I respect Hillary Clinton , her abilities and her honesty,
    she has done the hard work that has helped the other women you mentioned.
    I will be very glad if she can go all the way and become the first
    female President of the USA because she will be a good one.

    • Colonial Viper 37.1
      13 June 2016 at 5:27 pm

      You respect her honesty? Honesty about what exactly!

    • Hone 37.2
      13 June 2016 at 6:14 pm

      Do you respect the enabling of her husband to abuse women?
      And then the alleged abuse by Hilary towards these woman?

  38. Morrissey 38
    13 June 2016 at 5:33 pm

    Trump is Albert Schweitzer compared to Hillary Clinton.

    • johnm 39.1
      13 June 2016 at 5:45 pm

      I suppose little ole nz has to kiss the arse of Empire so goodies come our way. key will do lots of that! [Deleted. Don’t be an egg. TRP] Have a good day 🙂

      • red-blooded 39.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 5:54 pm

        [Sorted. See above. TRP] Come on! How about we refrain from being so damn sexist? This comment is almost at the (low) level of “She looks hot there, i’d tap that. 🙂” (an earlier comment).

      • RedLogix 39.1.2
        13 June 2016 at 6:09 pm

        @johnm

        I’m not moderating just at the moment, but that is over the line. There are any number of ways to attack Clinton’s suitability as POTUS if you want, but resorting to low sexism isn’t one that helps.

  40. Repateet 40
    13 June 2016 at 6:11 pm

    I have the feeling that New Zealanders who hate Clinton and love Trump (for whatever reasons) are strong supporters of Key. Anyone who thinks Key is marvellous and a truly great strong leader do not need to kiss the feet of Trump and knife Clinton to show their grip of reality and intellect. Their support of Key shows that.

    • siobhan 40.1
      13 June 2016 at 7:14 pm

      Who are you talking about?? Most people commentating today are anti Clinton but I don’t think they are Trump supporters, they are, if anything, Bernie supporters.

  41. Matthew Whitehead 41
    13 June 2016 at 6:48 pm

    On Politifact: While it does good work fact-checking false statements, it can sometimes err on the side of being too reasonable to establishment points of view and “everyone does it” type arguments, which is why it’s not terribly surprising that they rate Hillary as more honest than Bernie Sanders, a sentence which should be far more revealing about Politifact than Hillary, because Bernie is one of the few honest people in US politics at the moment, and it would be difficult to argue he wasn’t the most honest, especially if your proposed contender is Hillary Clinton.

    Sure, she doesn’t tell outright fibs too often, (there have definitely been some though, including her famously and incorrectly claiming to have been under sniper fire at a certain airport) but if you consider spin (or even just extreme spin) to be dishonest, which to a degree it is, you can’t really claim she’s an especially honest candidate, she’s just not a terrible liar.

    • Gabby 41.1
      13 June 2016 at 7:34 pm

      Several of the ‘red dot’ comments under Sanders were made by Clinton. Whose score do they count towards?

      • Matthew Whitehead 41.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 9:01 pm

        If you look into the “by ruling” links by clicking “true” or “mostly true,” etc… in the bar graph, you’ll see those counts only include statements actually by the candidate. It’s just that they include recent statements both by and about that candidate at the bottom of the page, such as Clinton’s rather ignorant comment that nobody runs negative media about Sanders.

        A good example of Politifact’s bias, however, is looking into their verdict on the events in Nevada:

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/may/19/claims-bernie-sanders-supporters-fraud-and-miscond/

        They rate it “false” that the process was abused because technically speaking, the letter of the rules wasn’t broken, even though it was a total abuse of procedure. (you can find video of some very strange voice votes happening there, no attempt to actually count votes, and the speaker very defensively reminding everyone that her decisions are final)

  42. siobhan 42
    13 June 2016 at 7:21 pm

    Why are there so many people getting cut off?? I thought this was a discussion forum rather than someones personal Blog??
    It’s all very strange, especially as the guys getting ‘told off’ all seem to be saying credible things that they obviously believe, whether you agree with them or not. Meantime all the grumps get a free ticket to say whatever without any need to source their ‘facts’.
    It’s all very ‘Daily Mail’ around these parts.

      • siobhan 42.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 7:42 pm

        Took a while to read, but I must say that policy is pretty open to interpretation, it’s so broad in scope that it allows for what looks like fairly biased decisions, and I’m still wondering exactly how you decide when and why it is applied.
        So, really, my question and my comment still stands.

        • te reo putake 42.1.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 7:55 pm

          Thanks for taking the time to read the policy, Siobhan. As you say, it’s open to interpretation and that will often come down to how an individual mod feels about the behaviour of the commenter. However, in the case of the two folk banned in this thread, both ignored an explicit instruction that wasn’t open to interpretation. Like all the authors and mods here, I’m a volunteer. I don’t like my time being wasted and I don’t like being told what to write, how to write or, indeed, how to moderate.

          I generally warn people, either gently as a reply to their comment or less gently using the bold black ink inside their comment. I haven’t had to ban anyone in ages and it’s great that others I’ve nudged on this post have moderated themselves, but to be clear, ignoring the requests of mods will almost inevitably lead to a banning.

          Hope this helps?

        • RedLogix 42.1.1.2
          13 June 2016 at 7:56 pm

          There is no hard and fast interpretation. It pretty much depends on which moderator is about at the time, and a bit of random luck as to how things pan out.

          And some posts are moderated more closely than others, for example I placed a note on the Orlando shooting thread today warning that it would be tightly moderated. Some emotive topics really do draw in unacceptable behaviour.

          In general it’s not too hard to avoid unwelcome attention from the mods if you comment with plain and honest intent to participate constructively in the debate. We’ve had hard-core right-wingers post here for years without problem.

          But moderators are people too, and we do have differing thresholds that trigger a response. That said I’ve always tried to avoid moderating a thread or conversation I’m actually participating in, because it is too readily interpreted as unfair censorship. But not everyone will see it like this.

          On the other hand arguing with a moderator is also pretty unwise. While we definitely do make mistakes from time to time (and I’ve made a few big ones over the years) in general no moderator can afford the time or energy to get drawn into what is almost always a fruitless parsing of who meant what, where and when. It’s usually smarter to just to take the moderation/ban and treat it as a learning moment.

          Thanks for asking about this … it can be a bit of quagmire for new commenters. A polite request for clarification will usually be treated respectfully.

        • lprent 42.1.1.3
          15 June 2016 at 2:25 am

          …but I must say that policy is pretty open to interpretation, it’s so broad in scope that it allows for what looks like fairly biased decisions…

          That was the exactly the intent. I wrote large chunks of it based on more than 30 years around the nets doing things the hard way. What we wanted here was a open access system (you only have to get one comment past a moderator and you have your identity), and one that protected our site, volunteers, authors and moderators from attacks that would make the site unworkable.

          It all required minimal work because there was no way that I could see a site targeting a small population (ie NZ) being able to pay salaries capable of sup[porting the people we needed from their real interests and jobs.

          Commenters should not require a lot of moderation because they should moderate their behaviour themselves. This is important because as a voluntary organisation where most of us are working and doing this in our spare time, what we’re interested in is reducing risk to the site from behaviours that disrupt debate and doing it with minimal effort ourselves.

          The vagueness is quite intentional. The policy isn’t a set of rules for the commenters to follow. Walk too close to a boundary behaviour and all of the risk becomes that of the commentator. If you are lucky and/or respected, then moderators and other commenters will warn you off behaviours that are close to the edge and sometimes moderators will.

          The policy is designed as a set of restraints on the moderators, because the harshest critics of moderators are other moderators. Just as the site is designed to allow a lot of differences of opinion, moderators usually disagree with each other and agree to disagree to one extent or another. And if moderators overstep, then the extra work to other mods tend to draw a reaction.

          You get different moderators with differing ideas about what is a danger to the site. For instance as a systems engineer and programmer I always look forward months ahead towards ugly downstream positive feedback effects. So I tend to quell early and very hard at very early point and preferably targeting a single person trying to game the system. Others tend to use different strategies.

          In biological terms this is a multi-predator/herd model designed to voluntarily restrain excesses on both sides, while culling out those who can’t live within the wide bounds of what is permissible. But I’m sure that others will disagree with that.. 😈

          It lets all of us concentrate on writing rather than being lawyers in our spare time.

          Also it is hard to argue with success. The site has been running as a surviving multi-author site with a continuously changing array of authors for a long time.

          For NZD250 and a reasonably low number of hours amongst a lot of authors per month, it currently gets between 50 and 65k unique readers per non-election month (depending what is going on) and on average we have about 48% more page views than we have in the equivalent period of the last election cycle. It has been running with steady election punctuated growth into its ninth year without showing any obvious signs of slowing down. I guess that these vague rules tend to work. Who’d have thought that could happen?

    • RedLogix 42.2
      13 June 2016 at 7:39 pm

      Moderation is never quite perfect around here 🙂

      Treading a line between moderating off the blatant trolls, open bigotry of all types, maintaining the Site Policy … and disrupting the flow of debate is never simple. And exactly where the line is drawn does tend to vary between mods.

      • siobhan 42.2.1
        13 June 2016 at 9:25 pm

        [Bye. See ya next month. TRP]

        • Colonial Viper 42.2.1.1
          13 June 2016 at 9:31 pm

          I’ve been banned by TRP before and I’m an author on The Standard.

          So don’t take it personally is my suggestion.

          The Standard exhibits many of the character traits of NZ’s current political left, both positive and negative.

          • weka 42.2.1.1.1
            13 June 2016 at 9:47 pm

            Wrong axis mate.

            Well done trp on getting rid of three thoughtful people who usually read and don’t comment and who were all expressing confusion and concern about where the boundaries are. A lost opportunity 🙁

          • Siobhan 42.2.1.1.2
            14 June 2016 at 1:59 pm

            Banned for a month?

            • Lanthanide 42.2.1.1.2.1
              14 June 2016 at 2:07 pm

              Yes, it’s based on IP address primarily, so you might be able to log in from another location (work, friend’s house, library) or if you’ve got a dynamic IP address from your ISP.

              So either one of the above is happening, or TRP made a mistake / didn’t actually ban you for a month.

              Either way, you’d best abide by the intent of the ban, or risk being banned for longer.

          • lprent 42.2.1.1.3
            15 June 2016 at 2:55 am

            I’ve been banned by TRP before and I’m an author on The Standard.

            And I’ve been known to ban TRP and his previous handle. I don’t remember banning him as an author. But there is a first time for everything.

            I have also had moderating decisions of mine overturned by other groups of authors a number of times, and been successfully told to take it quietly for a while several times.

            Shit happens.

  43. Dennis Frank 43
    13 June 2016 at 7:50 pm

    A balanced view of her would take in her political origin, right? 1,200 web pages show up if you google “I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl”. How many readers are old enough to know that Goldwater was to the (extreme) right of Richard Nixon back when she supported him?

    So okay, she’s a leopard who can change her spots. A woman has the traditional prerogative of being able to change her mind, and it’s remotely possible that one day mainstream guys might figure out how to do that too. Not a crime.

    The reason I’ve long felt extreme distaste for this contender is that nigh on a quarter of a century she’s shown up in our news clips, and never once said anything intelligent. If she is the best that Democrats can choose, and Trump is the best Republicans can choose, then democracy in the USA is a failed system. Time for devolution, folks, and may the return to Texan independence be the start of the bandwagon…

    • red-blooded 43.1
      13 June 2016 at 8:41 pm

      “A woman has the traditional prerogative of being able to change her mind, …”

      Excuse me? Can we get past the sexist crap, please?

      Have you ever changed your mind, Dennis (or would that be too “feminine”)?

      • Dennis Frank 43.1.1
        13 June 2016 at 10:39 pm

        Are you unable to read nuances? The adaption to circumstances has always been a crucial survival skill. Not just for humans. Males of our species tend to be slower on the uptake around this. So I was actually giving her credit for pursuing an evolutionary path in life. Most male critics would call her shift hypocrisy, obviously. And sexism lies in the eye of the beholder. And yeah, I’ve been following my intuition & changing my mind accordingly since I was a child (so they all thought I was weird, back when it was compulsory in this country to think & act like a robot).

        • red-blooded 43.1.1.1
          14 June 2016 at 6:38 am

          If you just said, “It’s fine to change your mind” without the crap about “traditional prerogatives” then your comment wouldn’t be seen as sexiest (which, BTW, it was).

  44. georgecom 44
    13 June 2016 at 8:53 pm

    here is a simple take on things.
    Clinton and Trump stand for the status quo.
    If anyone seriously thinks Trump will denote a major change in US politics, maybe they should wake up. Money speaks for money.

    Sanders talks about changing the status quo, structural changes.

    If you cannot achieve some significant change this time around
    what do you prefer

    some centre/left change within the status quo
    or
    no meaningful change in the status quo aside from promoting racist/sexist rhetoric and division

    changing the structural focus, aka Sanderism, is a longer term ball game now

  45. Neil 45
    14 June 2016 at 12:28 am

    I for one would be shit scared of letting Trump have his finger on the nuke button, he’s crazy enough to push it

  46. AsleepWhileWalking 46
    14 June 2016 at 9:23 am

    At the end of the day Clinton has committed a serious crime and left state secrets vulnerable. Can’t imagine how it will go down with her underlings if she is not indited, because if they themselves behaved the same way their careers would end. Immediately.

    As for the “election”, I predict Trump will be assassinated even if it means his helicopter being shot down, Hillary will be indited (or perhaps just have her true character shown), and Joe Biden will be installed as president.

    Hey, it’s as good of a guess as any in this crazy election.

    • Cemetery Jones 46.1
      14 June 2016 at 11:38 am

      Minor officials from the State Department have been jailed for far less negligent breaches of far lower priority information than having an unauthorised home server without requisite security in place being hacked by a Romanian stoner whose own system had been hacked by the Russians.

      O’bomber was diplomatic about the implications (national security not compromised by the Russians having the contents of the Secty. of State’s email server?), but couldn’t be clearer that the server was *not* authorised:

  47. AsleepWhileWalking 47
    14 June 2016 at 9:38 am

    Describing himself as “sickened” by Hillary Clinton’s character, a former Secret Service Agent has penned a tell-all book outlining her abhorrent behavior. Gary Byrne, a 29-year veteran of the military and federal law enforcement, alleges that Ms. Clinton’s personality left staff members at the White House terrified of her outbursts.

    His book, entitled Crisis Of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience With Hillary, Bill, And How They Operate, is due to be released on June 28, 2016. Pre-orders have been staggering, already placing it at No. 1 on the New York Times Bestseller List.

    Read more http://www.inquisitr.com/3190973/sickened-by-hillary-clintons-character-former-secret-service-agent-pens-tell-all-book/

    • Chooky 47.1
      14 June 2016 at 9:55 am

      +100…this seems to be supported by others in the know close to power who are coming out of the woodwork

      ‘Hillary is used to beating, kicking and abusing her own husband – former Nixon adviser’

      https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/332460-hillary-husband-nixon-adviser/

      “The American presidential contest is heating up, but the new book about Democratic co-frontrunner Hillary Clinton may have some wide consequences. It alleges that the Clinton family has been involved in abuse, rape and fraud, not having any qualms with using the privileged position and money to shut the mouths of victims. What’s the basis of these claims? Can it change the flow of the election campaign? We speak to the author of the book, a former advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Roger Stone is on Sophie&Co today…

      Sophie Shevardnadze: Roger Stone, political strategist, former advisor to presidents Nixon, Reagan, to candidate Donald Trump.. Now, you’ve just pen a book, called “Clinton’s war on women”, where you alleged that a lot of, frankly, sensational things about the personal lives of Bill and HIllary Clinton. For instance, you claim that Clintons systematically abused women, sexually and physically. Do you mean to say they rape and beat them? I mean, is that what you’re saying?

    • dukeofurl 47.2
      14 June 2016 at 5:57 pm

      No, its not on any best seller list, unless you count books on executive branch!!

  48. Chooky 48
    14 June 2016 at 8:38 pm

    ‘Wikileaks will publish ‘enough evidence’ to indict Hillary Clinton, warns Assange’

    https://www.rt.com/usa/346534-wikileaks-clinton-assange-fbi/

    …“We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” Assange told Peston on Sunday when asked if more of her leaked electronic communications would be published.

    About 32,000 emails from her private server have been leaked by Wikileaks so far, but Assange would not confirm the number of emails or when they are expected to be published…