https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXOp5Je66Xo

Watch it. Love Clinton. Hillary R Clinton is going to be the next president of the US of A.

*Clicks link* *sees her face* *shudders*

Also, http://www.arkancide.com/

... Did you just revive a 20 year old conspiracy theory with nothing to back it up?

I'm rooting for her too, and looking forward to her presidency. :)

Her reputation's been under a lot of groundless attacks- including the "Hillary is a liar" meme. Since most of us probably weren't around when these shenanigans started, here's a bit of context: www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Clinton's very interestingly had incredible approval ratings (including the third-highest Secretary of State approval rating ever) whenever she's in office but they plummet hard whenever she's seeking office. And there's a lot of weird stuff thrown at her- "rigging elections" (from Bernie), being a conservative, etc.- that meshes with the inaccurate Clinton persona that's flooded the public but doesn't have anything credible to back it up. :/

Edited 6/13/2016 02:51:31

Here's what to do if you disagree:
Make a list of all the deceased.
Google them.
Verify that they were real people with real connections to the Clintons and who really died violently - and were not just imaginary people invented by anti-Clinton propagandists.
Find out how they were connected to the Clintons and what information they were going to divulge.
Find out when the Clintons became aware of this.
Find out how soon afterwards each potential witness was bumped off.
Explain why so many of these murders had similar MO's (bullets fired into the back of the head, exploding planes etc.).
Explain why so many of these murders were described as suicides by the coroner.
Find out who appointed the coroner.
Here's what to do if you still disagree:
Have a brain transplant or start eating more fish.
Then the only remaining question will be: "was it Bill or Hillary?"

Too bad there's no good resources out there for quick fact-checking.

Oh wait: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

What's more likely- that the Clintons are criminal masterminds killing people for the most trivial of reasons (but still somehow managing to get investigated for things like Benghazi and an e-mail server that they surely had the skill to cover up)... or that, after Bill Clinton broke the Democrats' three decades of near-drought in controlling the presidency, conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory was launched by their opposition to drag their political careers through the mud?

We've seen the same pattern with Obama- "he's a Muslim," "he's a communist atheist Kenyan," "he wants to take away your guns," "Sandy Hook was a false flag," etc.- crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, but people keep throwing shit against the wall because some of it sticks. And that's how you end up with someone like Trump in the running to inherit the legacy of people like Washington and Lincoln.

Honesty isn't about making true statements in teleprompted speeches, it's about not skimming funds from a "charity", selling uranium, hiding servers, smearing women, etc. People that know her hate her. Stop defending her, you shrill.

See- that's why people love slinging conspiracy theories.

You threw a conspiracy theory, I showed you some pretty solid refutations- and then you come back and sling more vague accusations, mixed in with minor things like using a teleprompter to make the list look more impressive.

That's just how the Clintons' political life has been for the last three decades- mostly progressive votes, then Sanders calls her a conservative over things like voting for the Iraq War while being a senator for the state affected the most by 9/11; incredibly high approval ratings, Republican congressmen accuse her of bribery, lies, and even murder (and then- in the words of the man who accused her of these things- end up having to "eat crow").

Even when thoroughly disproven, these accusations live on and generate a Clinton persona that just builds up- you then get to the point where people accuse her of "smearing women" because it's gotten to the point where anything negative about her just matches the stream of lies and fits the trend.

I think that, if you do even just a little bit of research, you'll find a candidate that's got a very strong track record for honesty and standing up for both progressive issues and America, someone who's got pretty damn clean hands, and a person who both sides of the aisle have worked with, appreciated (yep, contrary to your claim of "people that know her hate her," her colleagues in Congress, the State Department, etc., have made some pretty damn approving reviews), and supported as the most qualified candidate in the race by a wide margin.

I mean, you're at the point where you're accusing me- someone with a long history of this site and literally no behavior that would remotely imply being paid off- of being a "shill." You're really just at the point where you're throwing conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory and accusation after accusation.

You might not end up liking her- as a candidate, maybe as a person too, after all people have different preferences- but, given that you've probably not even been alive long enough to experience her political career, I'd really recommend you invest just a little bit of time to learn about her and actually try to understand Clinton as a person and as a candidate, not just the Machiavellian Disney character collectively constructed by her political opponents and members of the public who unquestioningly believed them.

I personally mainly like Clinton for that reason- she's gone through a lot of unwarranted shit (being accused of every crime in the book without evidence, getting attacked for things like her face, her voice, and her breasts from conservatives, etc.) and still stuck around and kept fighting for what she believes to be in the best interests of America. She's strong, and by staying in when most people would've quit, she's become an inspiration. Even Bernie's "progressives" (i.e., the college students who think the best way to respond to their candidate losing a primary in a landslide is voting for Donald J. Trump) have kept stabbing her pretty hard with baseless accusations of election fraud (literally based on online exit polls and sketchy YouTube videos) and called on her to be imprisoned for life due to an investigation that the vast majority of legal analysts agree will probably not result in any charges- an investigation that the FBI's recently revealed doesn't even focus on her e-mail server. It's pathetic how much hate she's gotten, and I'm glad she's kept fighting despite it.

Edited 6/13/2016 03:07:59

Clinton is the main reason that the US supported Libyan rebels and bombed Libya. Over ten thousand deaths have occurred, and ironically, she's responsible for the Benghazi attacks regardless of the emails and request for extra security because she supported the destabilization of Libya that made it possible for those attacks to occur. And voting for the invasion of Iraq, which led to a million Iraqis dead, is a insanely immoral thing. Iraq had not attacked the US, it had not supported Al-Qaeda, and it had not planned on doing either of those things. She also supported her husband in the bombing of Yugoslavia, when there was evidence that the Serbian government under Milosevic had not committed ethnic cleansing in Kosova at all, and was only fighting the KLA (who with US support eventually ethnically cleansed Serbia of Roma and Serb Kosovars). She supported her husband's sanctions on Iraq that ended up killing thousands of folk.

At this point, I don't care if she killed a few dozen folk in assassinations. She's already responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

I got to be the 4000'th Dislike on that video, felt amazing.

"
Her reputation's been under a lot of groundless attacks- including the "Hillary is a liar" meme. "



^ Ok, who's the bastard who got our kynte high?. Seriously, I will fuck shit up

@Smedley: Thanks for criticizing her for her political choices instead of slinging vague conspiracy accusations. In an era of unprecedented polarization, that's the kind of conversation we need to actually have while making sure we avoid falling for Disney villain caricatures about the other side and giving them an honest look (I mean, this is a site where a disproportionate number of people say we should give even Hitler a second chance- it can't be that hard).

I think her only bad choice there was Iraq, and that's understandable for a senator from New York. As long as she admits it was a bad decision and has learned from it. As far as Libya goes, yeah the current status ain't pretty but staying quiet while Gaddafi attacked his own people and guaranteeing destabilization is much worse than trying to act and just risking destabilization. Same for Serbia (where there is ample evidence of ethnic cleansing and other problems, just contested by Serbia the same way Turkey contests the Armenian genocide). I think her decisions on military actions- while probably too globalist and interventionist for you- were good decisions to protect and pursue American interests. I certainly don't think we should shrink back to our borders and essentially give up superpower status. Both Hillary's foreign policy speech and multiple think tanks' arguments that a globally involved, strong America is critical to our economic welfare (after all, I don't trust China, Russia, India, or even the EU to pursue our economic interests) help make that point.

However, given that the only other candidate with a chance of getting the presidency is Trump and that our voting system is screwy and penalizes you for voting for your top choice candidate by making your less preferred major candidate likely to win, Hillary is still preferable to a candidate who's proposed significant deviations from our nuclear policy (that would result in more deaths) and war crimes like killing families of accused terrorists- as well as restrictions on the global free market (for a businessman, Trump's suspiciously willing to buy into the failed ideology of protectionism, although then again it might be out of self-interest to protect his inferior domestic business against superior foreign competitors)- from a libertarian perspective. Again, the choice is between a hundred thousand deaths and a million (from a libertarian standpoint; I'm not voting for someone I think of as a mass murderer), at which point it's probably hella tempting to vote for Gary Johnson. But out voting system is terrible and often requires you to vote against your top choice just to avoid the absolute worst scenario.

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.

I think Hilary Clinton gets loads of unearned attacks thrown at her. She does lie, and she did some bad things, but unless you're supporting Sanders (or Johnson), you're quite fully not one to talk. Trump lies far more and has no politic bumping at all.

Edited 6/13/2016 03:55:59

@the conservative: Before "fuck[ing] shit up," I'd appreciate it if you at least read the linked article from my first comment. I know it's long, but hey democracy ain't easy.

Also, I said this before, but Americans, you are in duty to vote for the other 7k million folk on the Earth, most especially to Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Yemeni, Pakistani, and whoever will come next - to those tortured and killed for small crimes in Middle America, and for those in the CIA's "black sites" in a huge direct contradiction to the European Court of Human Rights. And ultimately, responsible for innocent Americans imprisoned, for in most states, the gaoled can not vote.

Of course kynte lol you know I did. I just don't wanna another fight. Either way, between her and Trump I will be voting Gary Johnson XD

As far as Libya goes, yeah the current status ain't pretty but staying quiet while Gaddafi attacked his own people and guaranteeing destabilization is much worse than trying to act and just risking destabilization.

His folk revolted. Now, Gadaffi's government wasn't the most pretty by far, and it was pretty anti-freedom, but the US government has no grounds to criticize it there. And of course he was attacking his own folk, when your folk rise up and start attacking your government, many say that the government has the choice to fight the rebels, and is moral in doing so. Considering the US would have no qualms doing so, it's not a strong case when you would do the same.

Same for Serbia (where there is ample evidence of ethnic cleansing and other problems, just contested by Serbia the same way Turkey contests the Armenian genocide)

There is a German intelligence report that says there was not enough evidence for the Serbian effort to be considered ethnic cleansing.

http://www.iraqwar.org/germanreport.htm

I think her decisions on military actions- while probably too globalist and interventionist for you- were good decisions to protect and pursue American interests

No amount of money is worth thousands of dead folk. I can go, kill a bunch of folk in a bank and take all the money, and that is me pursuing Butlertarian interests, but it's still immoral.

On Trump vs Clinton, they're both mixed bags. Trump wanting to get rid of NATO is a good thing, and they both are likely to increase the number of troops in Syria, Iraq and Yemen anyway. But the point is, when it's a mixed bag on both ends that would both result in thousands to tens of thousands of deaths, its immoral to choose either. This is also the best chance libertarians will likely get, with two hated candidates being the main contenders, and mass defections from the GOP.

he's a communist atheist Kenyan
Lol'd at this. It's literally impossible to be a communist and a Keynesian. Keynes is a capitalist, and if you accused him of being a communist, he would probably be willing to put a bullet in you.

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.
Something that should be heavily pursued, we also wouldn't have gotten bush 43, Gore would've won without a doubt, as the Ralph Nader votes most likely shift to Gore. Gore technically won anyway with full recount of all votes in florida(http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) We should get rid of the electoral college.

Is #ClintonTrain even a thing? No, I'm not on the #ClintonTrain, I'm on the #TrumpTrain. Trump actually inspires enthusiasm in a lot of people, where those voting Clinton do it because they have always voted Democrat, or because they've been lied to by the media that Trump is a racist misogynist homophobe shitlord.

The Clinton presidency was one of the dirtiest in history. Bill raped lots of women, Hillary silenced them when she was not busy grandstanding as a women's rights advocate. Bill was impeached, he lost his law license. The Clintons should be in the Guinness book of world records for being the most crooked presidential couple. Yet, here we go again?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyI2okq4h1U

Lol'd at this. It's literally impossible to be a communist and a Keynesian. Keynes is a capitalist, and if you accused him of being a communist, he would probably be willing to put a bullet in you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/kenyan