jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (90 posts)

Hillary is vindicated of all Republican wasteful, sham Investigations.

  1. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13128687.jpg
    The right-wing camp is constantly calling for Hillary's imprisonment, even though they have spent 30+ years and countless MILLIONS of tax payer dollars to 'investigate' her, ridicule her, accuse her of wrongdoing, insinuate that she is 'crooked', a murderer, a liar, a cheat, and more. The Republicans are spreading vicious rumors because they are incompetent and impotent against her and her AMERICAN values.
    Hillary is still standing and fighting for the rights and benefits of AMERICANS. All the false rumors, accusations and innuendos are just making the right wing nuts look even nuttier.
    If there were real proof that Hillary is engaged in 'crooked' deals and activities, don't you think the proof would have been found by now?
    Please do not post false accusations about Hillary. Can't you find anything GOOD to say about our next president?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Yep - vindicated of putting classified information on her private server...as the FBI found she put over 100 pieces scattered through 50 email threads.  Completely vindicated, innocent of any wrongdoing.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        The investigation marked them as classified which is way after the fact. The reputation that Hillary has as a liar, a cheat, and murderer is the result of years of right wing propaganda and brainwashing by the right wing media (Fox News)  She has always represented a threat to the Republican party.  Everyone who has worked with her says she is hardworking, and  focused, even by the people from across the aisle.   Trump is also a result of that same mania caused by right wing propaganda.  Now they have created this monster and don't know what to do with him.

    2. rhamson profile image78
      rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      What Immigration reform is it you speak of?  Amnesty? How is that going to improve the country? What has she accomplished with free community college?  Universal Health care that is not affordable to many which is subsidized by the taxpayer. What has she done in overturning Citizen’s United? Campaign finance reform?, really? She is vastly funded by Wall Street. Raising taxes on the rich. When did she make that happen? What bills did she get passed as a Senator to enact that? Protecting women’s rights, explain what she did there? Combating climate change?  Again what has she accomplished on this front? Gay rights. Again what did she do or who did she enlist to help?
      Are we to believe these things as she gets called out on other things which she morphs into her own stance? She is the consummate politician bred by the best to tell us what we want to hear and then carry business out as usual the way her handlers (owners) want her to do. She is a shill for the corporate ownership of this country paying us lip service for our support.

  2. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    She is INNOCENT  of criminal or malicious INTENT! You really have a problem with reading and understanding the written word. Perhaps all Republicans and right wing witch hunters have the same problem.
    My question, of course, went unanswered - "Can't you find anything GOOD to say about our next president?"

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Right.  Putting an average of 2 classified pieces of information on each of 50 threads...and she had no intent to do so.  Maybe she didn't have intent, but only because she didn't care if she did or not - she is, after all, above the rules and laws the rest of us have to follow.

      No, I can't find a single thing good about Hillary.  She is a consummate politician, but that's not a good thing.  She is extremely good at manipulating people, but that's not a good thing, either.  I'd say she was good at stealing silverware, but she got caught.  She has built a massive political power base, but that's not good.  She has a charitable organization, but the 10% she gives back out isn't good, and neither is disbursing political favors in return for contributions.

      No, I can't find a single good thing about that woman.  Perhaps she has good table manners?

  3. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 4 months ago

    "Can't you find anything GOOD to say about our next president?"

    Donald J. Trump is the man!  He will win by a landslide.

    1. Austinstar profile image78
      Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      #loserTrump will never be president of the United States. Take that to the bank. So sorry you cannot see through Trump's deceit and hate and megalomania and pathological lying and failed business acumen. You REALLY believe he is your pal, don't you? So sad.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        "You can keep your whining and complaining public because it shows what poor judges of character YOU are! "

        "You can keep on believing what you want to about her <him> because I, and everyone else, knows you are repeating the same old accusations that the witch hunters are so fond of repeating until hell freezes over."

        "None of you are presenting facts and true conviction or proof of wrong doing on Hillary's <Trump's> part. "

        "This forum is posted so people can say good things about Hillary Clinton <Donald Trump>. If you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything!"

        http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1373 … ost2829451

  4. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    I'm quite sure that she does indeed have good table manners, thank you!
    She is also on record as being one of the most honest of politicians. She is a strong intelligent woman. Why she is resented for this, I do not know.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Hillary Clinton doesn't know the meaning of the word "honesty".  She just says whatever she thinks will keep her in power, and honesty has no part in it.

      But she IS an intelligent woman.  That is to her credit and I stand corrected.  Strong - Gengis Kahn was strong, too, and so was Hitler and all other conquerors.  That is not a positive, not when it is taken to extremes as they and Clinton have done.

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Hello Austinstar,  What do you mean she is also on record as being one of the most honest of politicians? What record?

      This poll compilation show 50+% of folks polled on various questions about Hillary find her neither honest or trustworthy. There are a bunch of specific event questions that highlight the hot button issues that you might be interested in. You should take a look.

      How does your "record" reconcile with these poll answers?

      GA

      1. Austinstar profile image78
        Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … l-candida/

        http://www.politifact.com/personalities/

        Politifact has won a Pulitzer prize. They are not just some random poll.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I read your links. I don't see the connection. Both links were relative to what she said about someone else. And the first link only compared her statements against Bernie Sanders.

          She was mostly truthful about stuff like; "Says Donald Trump "claimed our armed forces are 'a disaster."  or "Florida doesn't regulate assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles or large-capacity ammunition magazines. It doesn't require a permit to purchase a gun. It doesn't require any registration, whatsoever."

          Not the kind of record of honesty I took your point to mean. I looked for Politifacts evaluations of such statements as; no classified emails, or an internet video was responsible, but all I found in your links were statements about documented facts or what Donald Trump said.

          But I did find another Politifacts Hillary statements page that you might be interested in. It does include the internet video and email questions, but it does not support your "record of honesty" links. Hillary Clinton False Statements

          GA

          1. Austinstar profile image78
            Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            This may shock you, Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … l-abramson

            Candidate fact check: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-c … nts/24196/

            Who is the most truthful candidate? (search results from Google:)
            "Hillary Clinton is the most honest candidate in the 2016 election. Bernie Sanders is a close second, making them the two most comparatively “honest” politicians in the race. In contrast, Donald Trump rates out as nearly a pathological liar, and Cruz doesn't do much better."

            NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opini … thers.html

            The Star Tribune - With Chart - http://www.startribune.com/assessing-th … 372603041/


            http://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13130349.jpg

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Austinstar, I can appreciate your effort to find links to support your claim, but it appears we are talking past each other from different perspectives.

              Of your four links, one was an opinion piece, (but the author does seem to have the credentials for her opinion), and the other three were just rehashes of the same original Politifacts story. The same source of the false Hillary statements I posted to you.

              I can see that I misunderstood your claim that she was on the record as being the most honest politician. Relative to the other candidates, (what a stretch to even include Trump in this), Politifacts has rated her statements the most truthful. Which means she could be the most honest politician among them, relative to what she says, or, the most savvy.

              To me, a claim of honesty includes actions, not just statements. I am unconvinced. The Politifacts' Hillary False  Statements page covers what I view as more important evaluations of her honesty in both statements and actions. I think your Pulitzer Prize-winning source has thrown us both a bone. I think my is bigger.

              GA

  5. tlcs profile image81
    tlcsposted 4 months ago

    Gosh, I am so glad that I am in the UK. Sounds like it is a real battle in the US nominating your next president.

  6. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    Hillary has been allowed a cake walk by the media  AND  by the Democratic lead Justice Dept.  ,   the FACT that she has  slipped so far down in the % of trust factor , EVEN  among her own party members shows a lot  about why her polls are slipping down !
    She belongs in Leavenworth  !

  7. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    I will no longer reply to anyone who posts unfounded insuations about Hillary's character. You can keep your whining and complaining public because it shows what poor judges of character YOU are!

    You can keep on believing what you want to about her because I, and everyone else, knows you are repeating the same old accusations that the witch hunters are so fond of repeating until hell freezes over.

    None of you are presenting facts and true conviction or proof of wrong doing on Hillary's part.

    This forum is posted so people can say good things about Hillary Clinton. If you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything!

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image93
      RJ Schwartzposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Austin - You don't have any authority to decide what people post on a forum.  I can see by everything I've read that you are passionately supporting Mrs. Clinton.  However what you've shown in a collection of opinions, yours and those of other people who work for news outlets.  You don't have any governing authority to decide which is more credible.  Good luck with trying to suppress anyone else's thoughts or ideas, although I don't see you having any luck.  Perhaps you should have written a Hub instead so you can apply your usual heavy-handed censorship to comments.

  8. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    Quote from a fellow hubber - R.G. - "The ability to simply ignore facts is rife among the Trumpets, as is plainly evident from their comments. Fortunately, many of my friends who formerly backed him are now turning away from the idiot because of his uncontrollable mouth. Can't wait for the debates if Trump doesn't slink out of them like the slime he is."

    http://hubpages.com/literature/The-POs- … -After-All

  9. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 4 months ago

    Good things about Hillary: I think she's a good mother/grandmother. She's smart. She's tried to help children.

    Sorry, but I can't say many good things about either of our choices this election. 330 million people, and these are the best we can come up with??

    BTW, I'm voting for Hills. I agree with a few of Trump's positions, but he scares the crap out of me.

  10. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    Holly! Long time, no see! I'm glad you are voting for Hillary. I'm sure she is the best of what is up for election.

    I compare Hillary to our late, great, Texas governor - Anne Richards. Hillary is a true Democrat and a fighter for the rights and benefits of the people of America. She stands up to the insults and keeps right on going.

    Trump on the other hand, only wants to build impossible walls and ban people of different religions. Oh, and make himself god. If he had legitimate plans for accomplishing these things, I might give him some credit, but he insults everyone that isn't an angry white guy. And he has no plans.

  11. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
    Kathleen Cochranposted 4 months ago

    Thanks for this effort, but don't get your hopes up.  Those who still spout the lies are not interested in the truth.  The world is flat - haven't you heard? 

    I've said I thought she would make an excellent president, but I didn't necessarily admire her.  The convention last week changed my mind about that.  She is absolutely admirable.  And compared to the other candidate - saints preserve us. 

    Hang in there.

    1. Austinstar profile image78
      Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      She is probably the most denigrated person in America. I admire her courage under this kind of scrutiny and abuse.

      When I watch the Trump rallies, I am constantly shocked at the level of disrespect the followers of Trump (and Trump himself) show to other people in general and at Hillary specifically. What kind of people are these? They believe in conspiracy theories (without solid proof), they believe photo shopped lies and spread them continuously, they mock our veterans, they love violence and hatred. I just don't get it.

      In short, they act like the Westboro Baptist Church members! or the "radical Islamists" that they think they can defeat with torture and more violence.

      I much prefer Bernie Sander's "revolution" of peace and common sense. And Bernie has had quite an influence over Hillary - she actually LISTENS to his ideas! So, that is why she gets my vote.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        "She is probably the most denigrated person in America."

        Outside of Donald Trump, you're probably right.  Do you admire his courage as well, or find the mudslinging to be justified because he is neither liberal nor politically correct?

        1. Austinstar profile image78
          Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          What courage has Donald Trump expressed during the last 30 years? The right to bully people out of their money and life businesses? Building skyscrapers and "creating thousands and thousands of jobs" is not courageous, that just what he makes money off of! Plus he cheated many of those people out of being paid for their hard work. He is the most sued businessman in America because of his shady business practices. He hides behinds lawyers - is that courageous?

          He deferred out of Vietnam over BONE SPURS IN HIS HEELS! How can you find that courageous? He denigrates and mocks US Veterans - even those who were P.O.W.s and killed in action! He states that "avoiding venereal diseases" was his "military training"!

          Hillary has been in public office almost her entire life! Trying to serve the ungrateful people of this nation! And what do Trumpsters do? Bully and chastise and hate on her. All of Trump's campaign is based on INSULTS and LIES! Is being an obnoxious bully courageous?

          Trump followers are sick individuals and psychiatrists have stated so on national TV. What kind of person thinks Trump is a decent human being, much less a good pick for president?

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Yeah, Hillary has been in public office almost her entire life - trying the screw the people that feed, clothe and house her even to the point of stealing silverware from the home those people provided her.  All her campaign is based on INSULTS, LIES and POLITICAL FAVORS for campaign or Clinton Foundation donors.

            Clinton followers are sick individuals and psychiatrists have stated so.  What kind of person thinks Clinton is a decent human being, much less a good pick for president?

            I trust you can discern the hypocrisy in the garbage you are spewing?

            1. Austinstar profile image78
              Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              I am sorry that all you can do is parrot back what was just said. I wonder who is controlling you?
              This is the sort of thing that trolls and 3rd grade bullies do.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                Guess you can't discern the hypocrisy.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            .

  12. blueheron profile image96
    blueheronposted 4 months ago

    I guess you didn't hear about Hillary rigging the primaries to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Further, Comey's statement regarding Hillary's emails details her guilt--and does not recommend prosecution on the grounds of "intent," which is simply unheard-of as either a defense or mitigating factor in a criminal investigation. The lack of "intent" is particularly clear with regard to carrying on State Department correspondence on an unsecured server. The idea that she did not intend to do so is absurd on its face. For Hillary to have done this out of stupidity would make her a candidate for a group home, rather than a candidate for president.

  13. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 4 months ago

    Hillary wheels the field when making any statement. In front of millions of Americans it was spontaneous reaction to obscure video. In private it was a planned terrorist attack. In front of congress, what difference does it make. Is the same for every position. For it here against it there. She claims she always held those contradictions, one way or another. Hillary is the most honest politician and the most dishonest politician because she covers the bet on all positions. She is for AND against it. And always has been. She is going to make wall street pay!  Her..

    1. Austinstar profile image78
      Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Holy crap. Seriously? You resent Hillary for getting paid! These companies HIRED her! So, they pay her! Big shock that she might want to support them. Big shock that she changes her mind whenever new information comes along. She's not stubbornly mind broke.
      Politicians try their best to please their constituents, their country, their family, their detractors, and, big shock again, their supporters.
      It's what they do. But this is part of the process for making INFORMED decisions when the time comes to make those decisions.

  14. ahorseback profile image52
    ahorsebackposted 4 months ago

    The American Voter  ,fully understands  the element of honesty in a candidate .    Hillary has a negative trust factor , more and more women I talk to  are against her , there is the surprise to me  !      Unlike Obama  , of whom 90 % of black voters voted for simply because he was a black man ,I suspect female bias  for  Hilary will not be a deciding  factor .   Honesty  HAS to win this next election cycle . It has to !

  15. Alternative Prime profile image83
    Alternative Primeposted 4 months ago

    SORRY Trumpeteers sad but the POST GOP Convention POLLS a.k.a. the POST GOP "Hate Fest" of LOSERs & ANTI-American Future Prisoners, Reveals & Corroborates the LOOMING Disaster for "Delusional Donald" & Congressional Republicans Come NOVEMBER ~

    ACCORDING to REPORTs ~ 51% of AMERICANs are LESS Likely to Vote for Donald while 36% of AMERICANs are More LIkely to Vote for him after Watching the GOP RNC "Circus of Uncomfortable DELUSIONs" a.k.a. the RNC GOP Convention ~

    C'mon, HONESTLY did you EXPECT a Different OUTCOME ? ~ The FACT Remains, the MORE "Delusional Donald" shows his Face on TELEVISION & the Internet, the MORE AMERICANs & Global Citizens D*E*S*P*I*S*E Him sad

    But there's Still HOPE for this Idiot ~ Maybe if he "INSULTs & Disrespects" 1 GOLD Star Family per day who knows, maybe he can get elected PRESIDENT of Russia if of course he can manage to get outta' the USA with his CHEAP Lookin' Hair Plugs in place ~ smile

    1. ahorseback profile image52
      ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      And with all of Hillary's  trust deficiencies , all of her lies , all of the controversies of her past ..............................  Good ole Alternative Prime  thinks she's the one ! 

      Your hypocrisy knows no bounds .A.P.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        ahorseback:  Trump (man child) has risen to the level of presidential nominee, not because he is so great, but because of what the republican party and fox news has done. For years their mission was to defame Hillary and Obama, by spreading propaganda and misinformation about both of them. They taught their followers to never accept that Hillary has been absolved of charges on Benghazi and her email and to never forget it.  They have been taught that Obama is a black Muslim who is living in their White House with his family.  They have been taught that the do nothing republican congress is Obama's fault instead of the truth that their mission was to make him a one term president and to block his every move.  They have been taught that even if Trump is unfit to be president, he is still better than Hillary.

        The tea party was taught to want their country back and that all the countries ills are because of liberals.  When in in fact, there is blame on both sides of the aisle.  Now Trump wants to make America Great Again, when AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT.  They have been taught that it isn't great because of all the reasons I have stated above.  And Trump plays right into it.  They have been taught that Trump is strong because he knows how to conquer his opponents.  When in fact he divided and conquered his opponents, by defaming them with insults and branding each and everyone of them, including Obama and Hillary.  They have been taught to overlook that he has insulted people in his own party and that he insulted Gold Star families and their sons and daughters.  They have been taught to vote for him at any cost because even as bad as he is, he is better than Hillary and Obama.

        Hitler wanted to make Germany Great Again and his faults were overlooked and look what happened...Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

        1. ahorseback profile image52
          ahorsebackposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          Peoplepower ,There you go    Trump  just simply must be a Nazi ! .......Right ?   Welcome to the default  liberal media  answer to ALL things Trump that lack  any real comparison to the man .
          You sir are old enough to  use common sense , try some .

          -Brown shirts
          -Nazi
          -Dictator
          - psychopath
          -Socio-path
          -Racist
          -Islamophobe
          Help me out here .......Got more ?

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            ahorseback:  You can bury your head in the sand if you want.  Just like the populous did when Hitler took power.  No welcome to the conservative answer for all things, if you are a liberal, then you are socialist, if you are a socialist, then you must be a communist. If you are communist, then you are ruining my country.  The truth is Trump talks like Hitler and his body language is like Mussolini.

            He told Putin he should invade the Ukraine.  News flash Putin already did it. In his security briefing, he asked three times, why he couldn't use nuclear weapons. 

            The New York Times last week said that he might not provide military assistance to the Baltic countries—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—if they were invaded by Russia, even though they are part of NATO and the alliance’s treaty declares that an attack on one member is an attack on all members. Trump said that his support would hinge on whether those under attack had fulfilled their financial obligations to the alliance, including a pledge by each country to spend at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024.  The mafia calls that a protection racket.

            Here is a reality check.  The GOP leaders are in a pickle right now, because they know Trump is unfit to be president.  However, they have election seats coming up, including the seat left by Scalia.  They are wiling to sacrifice everything and continue to support this train wreck, just because  if Hillary becomes president, they lose those seats.  But Trump will be Trump.  I don't think he is capable of changing his behavior to save them.

            If you criticize him for anything, he will try to destroy you.  When he opens his mouth, it is just a sh*t storm  of contradictions.  It's all a big shell and pea game with him. And he knows people like you will overlook anything he says or does, because God forbid if lying, cheating, murdering Hillary gets into office.

            1. blueheron profile image96
              blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              First of all, Putin did not invade Ukraine. The current regime in the Ukraine was installed by a US-backed coup, which ousted a democratically elected government. Second, the story that Trump asked why he could not use nuclear weapons is pure hearsay. Journalist  Joe Scarborough said that an unnamed "foreign policy expert" said Trump said this. Pure "he-said/she-said" stuff unworthy of even being reported. Thirdly, NATO is great if you're all about costly meddling and intervening in the affairs of other sovereign nations, and you like supporting the MIC with boatloads of money and stirring up needless and costly wars which, by the way, get American kids killed defending other countries. I'm not seeing an upside to this.

  16. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    If you look in the dictionary for 'hypocrisy' - there is Donald Trump! and all his followers. Surprisingly, they are also noted under "crazy train"!

    Obama and Hillary agree that Trump is unfit and "woefully unprepared" to be president. Yet, the Trumpsters still cannot read the writing on the wall. I guess because 98% of them just can't read.

    How much longer are the Republicans going to keep up the sham of supporting the Orange Lizard Man?

    Who wants to place their bets in the pool for the day that Ryan finally gives in and says, "I can no longer support the current Republican candidate for the office of President?"

  17. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    10 IMPORTANT things you should know about Hillary Clinton:

    1. She supports a fair tax system and will RAISE (not lower) taxes on the 1% richest group in America.
    2. She fights for equality in our K-12 educational system.
    3. She has an actual plan for helping to improve racial inequality and justice.
    4. She sees addiction (drugs) as a physical illness and wants to get drug addicts the real treatment that they need. Not just throw them in privatized prisons.
    5. She has plans for our police and communities to come together and work with each other instead of against each other.
    6. She does NOT want to "eliminate the 2nd. Amendment", but she DOES want to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them in the first place.
    7. She supports low cost and yes, even free PUBLIC education to include PUBLIC colleges.
    8. She will bring in JOBS through the use of science and technology and infrastructure rebuilding. She will clean up jobs in the planet polluting areas of coal and petroleum, encouraging more JOBS in the efforts to clean up our planet and the air we all breathe.
    9. She understands our ECONOMY! She won't be declaring our country "bankrupt" and defaulting on our debts.
    10. She understand our FOREIGN POLICIES and will negotiate first before sending our brave young sons and daughters off to wars over oil and religion!

    You can go to her website and actually READ her policies and plans.
    Her tweets are uplifting and positive! So subscribe to her Twitter feed.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      How do you figure that "fair" taxes means that some pay more than others for the exact same product?  Should you pay more for a hamburger than your neighbor does?

      1. Austinstar profile image78
        Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        If I have more money than they do, I should not only pay more, I should buy their hamburger for them too.

        Not everyone is born with silver spoons in their mouths or the capability of amassing HUUUGE sums of money - more than they will ever need. Or have it "loaned" to them by their rich daddies, or just declare bankruptcy so they don't have to pay their debts.

        They should invest in our country's welfare. They should pay their proportionate share of their good fortune.

        They should participate more in our country's security, defense, and welfare.

        The poor join the military to help defend our country and maybe all they have to give is their very lives. But they do so because that's what real humans do. They look out for each other.

        But you don't understand these things. You probably believe the rich should just get richer and lord it over the "lesser" beings of the planet.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          And YOU don't have the faintest idea what the word "fair" means.  For it certainly has nothing to do with paying more than the next person for the same thing.

          1. Austinstar profile image78
            Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            If I want to buy a politician, how much do they go for? I wouldn't want to pay too much, just what all the regular billionaires pay, right?

            If I want to buy your vote, how much are you selling it for? The same vote for the same price?

            Sure, go ahead and pay the same rate for taxes that everyone pays. Not a problem for me. Pay the same rate for your soul too while you are at it.

            I don't expect you to buy me any hamburgers for sure.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

              You will never understand it, I think.  The liberal mind is too ingrained with "what belongs to others actually belongs to me".  You are far too besotted with the idea that you can have whatever you want simply by taking what others have earned.

              1. Austinstar profile image78
                Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                No, i understand you only too well. Being a decent human being is what you are failing to understand.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Right.  It's always "decent" to steal from one to do with as you wish, isn't it?

                  Like I said, the liberal mind cannot comprehend what is "fair".  Or even what is "decent" as that word is somehow changed to "steal".  Legally, to be sure, but still "steal".

                  I'm sorry, Austin - you are way too far left to even have a discussion with - when someone demands that if I am not up with being forced to pay for someone else, just because they like the idea, you've made a corner I don't care to follow.

                  1. Austinstar profile image78
                    Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    See, right there - your mind equates 'fairness' with stealing! or defines 'liberals' as wanting something for nothing.

                    The reality is that what you are really describing is the opposite of human decency and equality. You are talking about GREED and BIGOTRY.

                    Just because progressives want "all men to be created (and treated as) equal", you automatically think we want your money, or for you to do/pay more than your share.

                    You do not understand that money and power are worthless as far as being a good and decent human being go. You are like Trump in that you will never understand the meaning of the word 'sacrifice'. So go - vote for him. I can't stop you. No one can stop you. Trump wants to cut taxes on the rich, so he can get richer. But he will NEVER be a decent, kind, fair human being.

                    Hillary is as close as we are going to get in this election to protecting our economy, defense, world negotiations, taxes, immigration, and every other issue. If you want Trump and obstructionist Republicans, then vote that way. Like I said, no one is stopping you.

                    You only think in terms of "ME or MINE", never in terms of "US or OURS".

                    I feel sorry for you and your children, if you have any. The power of love and equality and caring for our world is beyond your ability to give or feel. That is a sad way to live.

    2. blueheron profile image96
      blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      I'm having a hard time  figuring out where to begin in replying to your list of Hillary's policies. She has explicitly stated that she would raise taxes on the middle class--not just the 1%. (I just watched her say this in a video this evening.) The points relative to education funding are, frankly, ludicrous. Public education in the US, from K-16, has been declining precipitously in outcome and rising in costs (to an absolutely staggering degree) since 1970 and is now a joke. IMHO the entire public education system from K to the moon needs to be shut down, so that we end this charade of spending tens of thousands of dollars per student per year to produce young people who are both illiterate and innumerate, besides having no knowledge of history, geography, or economics--or anything else. The public school system is directly responsible for producing our current condition of  "Idiocracy." It is the institution that has failed to educate black kids for decades. The purpose of public school system is to dumb down kids--especially blacks--and actively keep them ignorant. That's what it's FOR. The other proposed programs for jobs and drug rehabilitation and green energy, have been shown for decades to be mere pork-barrel, make-work programs which, like the public education system, have a negative economic impact and a negative utility. They're simply money sinks, and mostly scams, with most of the money going to the Money People. The Solyndra scandal is one example, although Obamacare is another glaring example of what these supposed "do-gooder" schemes actually amount to. Re foreign policy, Hillary's record speaks for itself. She's been a interventionist war-monger for her entire political career, and a devoted shill for the MIC. The woman may have Stalin beat when it comes to the death and destruction she's wrought throughout the world. When you say, "She understands our ECONOMY! She won't be declaring our country "bankrupt" and defaulting on our debts," I have to chuckle. The US is rather thoroughly bankrupt. A private person with a DTI like Uncle Sam's would be laughed out of his/her cardboard box under a bridge. It would be facile to say that government "obligations" cannot be met, since they can always be met with confetti bucks, as long as you have a printing press. The difficulty here is that issuing currency (digital currency) erodes the value of a currency, and you end up in Weimar territory. You might want to read up a bit on economics and monetary issues. I would suggest some Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy, the State), some Henry George (Progress and Poverty), and the more recent "Creature from Jekyll Island." I fear these will be far over your head, due to the effects of the public education system on your mental powers. This is not your fault, of course, but if you'd like to be a fully developed human, you might want to do something about it.

  18. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    Meg Whitman is not only going to vote for Hillary, she's a Republican that is going to RAISE MONEY for Hillary!
    The list of Republicans jumping off of the Trump crazy train is growing quickly!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … y-clinton/

  19. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    @blueheron

    I considered answering your wild conspiracy theory rant point by point, but you would not listen to anything I have to say, so why bother.

    You sound like an extremely unhappy person and I am sorry to hear that you have such a horrible attitude toward this country's government.

    What would make you happy? Because, obviously, it's all about YOU. Perhaps you should delete your account and move to a country more to your liking.

    Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image85
      PrettyPantherposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Whenever I see or hear someone use the term "statist, " I know there is no real conversation to be had.

      1. Austinstar profile image78
        Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        When a person resorts to name calling and labeling right off the bat, we both know that the person cannot think in original thoughts. They just fixate on whatever the rant of the day happens to be.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image90
          peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

          PrettyPanther and Austinstar:  I agree with both of you.  Statist is a term used by Mark Levin of Fox News.  The other term he likes to use is Tyranny.  Fox news has not only brainwashed its audience, but has actually taught them how to fear and hate democrats.  Their entire mission has been about maligning Hillary and Obama. so they can get back into the White House, continue to control congress, and have a conservative take Scalia's seat in the Supreme Court.

          Instead what they have done is created the atmosphere and opportunity for Trump to rise to presidential nominee. And now they are between a rock and a hard place and don't know what to do with him. He loves to divide and conquer.  In view of his latest antics, he may end up doing just that.

          1. blueheron profile image96
            blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

            Statism and Statist are terms that have definitions. Here are a selection:  the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty; the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government; concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.
            Ayn Rand (though I'm not a fan of hers), offers a good definition too: "collectivism or statism holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good. A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims. A statist is a man who believes that some men have the right to force, coerce, enslave, rob, and murder others. The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction."
            Nock distinguishes between "the State" and "government" by saying, "Government implements the common desire of society, first, for freedom, and second, for security. Beyond this it does not go; it contemplates no positive intervention upon the individual, but only a negative intervention." The State is "a type of political organization essentially different from the type that he [Paine] has just been describing; different in origin, in intention, in primary function, in the order of interest that it reflects. It did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation.

            Its intention, far from contemplating “freedom and security,” contemplated nothing of the kind. It contemplated primarily the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another, and it concerned itself with only so much freedom and security as was consistent with this primary intention; and this was, in fact, very little. Its primary function or exercise was not by way of Paine’s purely negative interventions upon the individual, but by way of innumerable and most onerous positive interventions, all of which were for the purpose of maintaining the stratification of society into an owning and exploiting class, and a property-less dependent class. The order of interest that it reflected was not social, but purely anti-social; and those who administered it, judged by the common standard of ethics, or even the common standard of law as applied to private persons, were indistinguishable from a professional-criminal class."

            Liberals are, as I said before, Statists of the deepest dye. All the policies they adhere to--and have already put in place--are designed to increase State power, rather than to keep government within the bounds of securing "freedom and security." The State, for example, simply has no business being involved in education or health care. We see the results today. Education barely exists at all, has been replaced by merely teaching kids "a servile reverence for a sacrosanct State," and is absurdly costly. The same is true of health care--largely a massive failure, especially in terms of costs but also in terms of the science of healing, which exists mainly to enrich Big Pharma and insurance companies. State intrusion into commerce is the reason why you millenials have to go, hat in hand, to beg a big corporation for a job, in hopes of being allowed to live. In 1900, before all these intrusions, people in the millenial age group would have been starting their own businesses and buying and running their own farms. Working for someone else was merely a temporary measure for young people, for learning a business or a trade and for saving enough money to strike out in some wholly independent enterprise. People at that time did not need to "get a job." They produced something and sold it.
            You really have to make a decision about whether you want the State controlling every aspect of your life.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image90
              peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

              Blueheron: I guess the constitution, the balance of power and the preamble to the constitution means nothing.  Because according to you, we are in Statist or we soon will be and it is all the liberals fault...What a crock of you know what!  Here is the preamble.  Pay particular attention to the part about "promote the general welfare."

              We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

              1. blueheron profile image96
                blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                My guess is that when the Founding Fathers included that phrase, they did not have in mind NAFTA or TPP (which Hillary favors), nor foreign entaglements (NATO, wars in the ME and elsewhere, which Hillary favors), the destruction of national sovereignty through Globalism and TPP (both of which Hillary favors), bailing out Wall Street and the big banks (which both Obama and Hillary favor), the destruction of small and medium sized independent businesses through taxation and regulation schemes that give huge advantages to big corporations--and reward them for moving the US manufacturing base out of the country (which Hillary favors), etc. Now, if you are talking about social welfare programs, you might want to name one that has provided long-term benefits to the people it claims to be "helping." Obamacare? Public education? Social Security? The student-loan program? I might mention that blacks are worse off now by almost any measure, than they were in 1950.

                Or, to put it more briefly, in almost every single instance government's schemes to "promote the general welfare" through social programs have been destructive to the general welfare. There is a reason for that: Such programs never had any other purpose than increasing State power and lining the pockets of State cronies. Awhile back, someone in the blogosphere calculated the total costs of all social welfare programs and concluded that it came to enough money to give every man, woman, and child in the US $30,000 a year. Hence, our basic arithmetic skills show that these funds are not going to the people. These programs are like those charities that exist mainly to pay administrative salaries to cronies, which is most of them.

                1. Austinstar profile image78
                  Austinstarposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                  Absolutely none of what you just said is true. Do some fact checking with your Congressman and Senators if you don't believe the MSM.
                  Bill Clinton passed NAFTA
                  Hillary is presently against the TPP even though Obama is for it.
                  There is no such conspiracy to destroy "national sovereignty through globalism" whatever that is
                  Bailing out Wall Street and big banks was a national emergency in order to save our economy
                  Hillary is against unfair taxation that give advantages to corporations and wants to sanction them for moving jobs out of the U.S.A.
                  Obamacare has definitely helped thousands of people who didn't have health care and couldn't get it because of the unfair practices of corporate insurance companies. ( I worked in health care for 38 years and I saw the results of the Affordable Care Act up close and personal)
                  Public Education was stripped because of the Iraq war that G.W. Bush enacted when he enforce his "no child left behind" falsehood. Hillary has been working to change that and get our schools up to world standards.
                  The student loan program is a start - no, it's not perfect yet.
                  And ask any black person if they are better off than they were in 1950! You must be crazy and blind to not see the differences between then and now.

                  Please move out of this country today! We need people who are willing to work with the system in order to make it better.

                  All YOU are doing is tearing it apart.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    Not too bad...except Clinton wants unfair taxation - as unfair as she can get it.  Taking just as much as she can possibly get, but with half the country paying nothing.

                    And Obamacare has helped precious few - those that are stuck with the bottom tier insurance find it to be almost unusable, with deductibles far beyond anything they can pay.  They're in the same boat they were before, unable to have any health care while the rest of the country pays to pad insurance company pockets.  Trust me here - I'm one of them.

                  2. blueheron profile image96
                    blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

                    I've read that Hillary supported TPP until recently, and then decided she needed to change her position on that for expediency's sake. Her voting record indicates she that the is a corporatist and globalist through and through--as well as the MIC's most trusty war-mongers. TPP is a trade agreement that will allow corporations to overrule sovereign governments in many matters. We now have a situation where financial interests (which are global in nature) control most of the world's governments. The US gets the money it spends by borrowing from the Fed, for example. It is notorious that debt to central banking allows central banking to set government policy. Globalism is already largely in place. As many millenials know, he who controls the purse-strings makes the rules. When that person is Dad, he likely has your best interests at heart. When that entity is the Fed or the IMF, the objective is to rob you blind and enslave you. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" and "The Creature from Jekyll Island." My introduction to these matters was Frances Moore Lappé's 1977 book "Food First." (Antediluvian, but a good summary.) This notion that seems to be prevalent among liberals that bailing out the big banks was essential to "save the economy" is abject hogwash. The big banks received TRILLIONS at the cost of ordinary US citizens and continue to destroy the economy through the Fed's NIRP and QE policies. As an analogy, if the pizza shop or nail salon in your town gets into financial difficulties because the owner is a compulsive gambler and his millions in gambling debts create the risk that his business will close, does your town's city council say, "Oh, that's okay. Our town's citizens will be happy to pay your millions  in gambling debts, because we can't do without your pizza shop or nail salon" ?) The big banks' problems were, first of all in essence insane gambling debts of the most reckless kind. Secondly, they were undertaken with the connivance of the federal government and the FDIC. These banks were insolvent by FDIC standards for years before the 2008 crisis, and the FDIC failed to shut them down, per its mandate. Had these banks simply been shuttered in 2008 (or preferably long before), it would have been troublesome for large depositors (over $100,000), who might have had to wait for the FDIC to disburse their funds, and it would have been troublesome for the banks' stockholders who were imprudent enough to invest in a Ponzi scheme, but most US citizens would have merely been inconvenienced by having to move their accounts to a non-criminal bank. One of the larger reasons for our poor economy is that Wall Street and the big banks are sucking the blood out of the nation on an ongoing basis. You can read a bit about this in Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone 2010 piece, "The Great American Bubble Machine," in which Goldman-Sachs is described as "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." You can read the article in full here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … e-20100405
                    You perhaps don't remember the passage of TARP, but at that time Americans wrote and emailed Congress to oppose it's passage, with a 99% rate of opposition. Congress passed TARP almost unanimously. (I'm told that Bernie Sanders voted against it.)
                    Congress as a whole (both parties) is completely owned by the big banks and corporations. (Duh.) Hillary is the "status quo" and "the establishment" front-woman of the very deepest dye. Look at her record. One of the difficulties the Left has in painted her as "compassionate" and "anti-war" is that she has a VERY long record as one of our most incandescent war-mongers.
                    Obamacare is another of the many reasons millenials can't get a job. Employers simply cannot afford the premiums and so cannot hire full-time employees. People who are employed have seen their premiums and deductibles skyrocket.  If your deductible is $5,000, and your premiums are $800 a month, you might as well not have health insurance. I am old enough to remember when health care more closely approximated a free market--though of course it has not been a true free market for around 150 years. In the 1950s the average person was able to pay for doctor visits and prescriptions out-of-pocket. It was quite inexpensive. Many employees had catastrophic coverage through their employer, which was also cheap. The poor were pretty well provided for by private charity hospitals. In still earlier times (before my time) it was common for various social/religious organizations like the Masons or Knights of Columbus (and many others) to negotiate inexpensive health care for their members with local doctors; e.g. you paid a small yearly premium that covered the entire cost of your family's doctor visits for the year. The entire reason for the high cost of health care is the government subsidy and monopoly that surrounds every facet of this "industry." Pharmaceutical companies, for example lobbied to make their industry exempt from anti-trust legislation, such as the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The corruption in the whole health care field is just staggering--and all the problems directly traceable to government.
                    Education, as a whole, has been absolutely destroyed by government. We no longer have anything remotely resembling "education" in the US. Read John Taylor Gatto's "Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling." Many of his critiques are available online, since he has been much quoted, though I don't know where to find them offhand. It may interest you to know that my cost for college tuition in the 1970s was $10-20 per semester. This was because college scholarships were available to any high school student who showed at least marginal promise. (Mine was on the marginal side.) Banks were willing to make loans for living expenses, but it was possible to work your way through college back then. My student loans for living expenses totaled $1,200, if I remember correctly. While the quality of education was far better back then--college professors were all career academics, instead of today's fly-by-night "adjunct" professors (these "adjuncts" are a horror story unto themselves)--I'd have to say that college was still a waste of money. The enormous increase in the cost of college is entirely the result of the student loan program.

    2. blueheron profile image96
      blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Of course it is difficult to refute objective reality, so one must resort to ad hominems (which is all the libs have got). Re "conspiracy theories": The CIA coined "conspiracy theorists" in April of 1967, in a memo that was revealed through FOIA in 1975 where they said what techniques they'd employ to frame the theorist as outright crazy, or someone not to be believed.

      It was part of what they used to go after people who questioned the JFK assassination, such as Garrison. Garrison, a man who was the media blacked out or framed as a horrible, crazy human being, but is the only reason we ever saw the film of JFK's death, which directly contradicted the story reported by the media.

      And it was Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame, who pointed out just how wedded the CIA is with our media. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

      What the CIA said to do:

      Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy

      Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports (So, in this case, it would be.. have people friendly to Sanders or friendly to the Left...)

      Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable

      Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”

      Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active

      Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate

      Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories

      Accuse theorists of being politically motivated

      Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Instead of theorizing and speculating, and hoping someone else will do the legwork to find out if it's all true, how about finding out and THEN posting, showing the fact of the matter instead of just a speculation about what might be?

        Instead of proposing a possible conspiracy and waiting for someone else to provide the links between the evildoers, how about finding those links yourself and THEN posting what actually is rather than just saying what might be?

  20. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    I am disappointed in a lot of people, and most of them haunt these forums, but then some pretty cool people come around too!
    Thanks PrettyPanther and peoplepower73!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image90
      peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Hey thank you Austinstar.   You are pretty cool yourself.

  21. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    Oh my, you have been believing in conspiracy theories since JFK? So, sorry for your loss of the ability to read and understand things. Brain injuries are tough to recover from.

    Still, you can pack your bags and move to another country! I'm sure they would love to have you :-)

    1. blueheron profile image96
      blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      It is indeed hard to overestimate the harm done to young people by the public school system. Well, and there's also the MSM, which is today controlled by only six large corporations. The MSM is, in effect, a propaganda organ of the government. You need to inquire into things more deeply.

  22. peoplepower73 profile image90
    peoplepower73posted 4 months ago

    Trump is saying that Hillary created ISIS.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  ISIS was a result of George  W and company taking out Saddam Hussein.  This is an excerpt from my hub on ISIS.  It is far too complex, to just describe in a few paragraphs. 

    ISIS is not a country, but their goal is to become a country. ISIS was created as a result of the fall of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party.

    His high ranking officers were sent to a prison called Camp Bucca. The mistake that was made is that they were all imprisoned collectively and could meet and plot what they were going to do when they were released.

    One of the prisoners, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was to become the leader of ISIS. According to the guards, he could be described as a low profile model prisoner, so he was released early. He then joined Al Queda. After both of the Al Queda leaders were killed, he took over a branch of Al Queda. But there was a parting of the ways and he formed ISIS.

    The rest is history as we all know what he is today and what ISIS is doing. The important thing is that he is a Sunni who is known as the Caliph.. His goal is to change the middle east into a Caliphate led country. 

    The problem is there are people of faith that will believe anything Trump says, because they want to have faith in him.  Anything is better than Hillary...right?

    1. blueheron profile image96
      blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      ISIS and the various other radical Muslims groups are and have been funded by the US. In Syria, the objective has been destabilization and the ousting of Assad (a democratically elected leader whose popularity among Syrians is comparable to Obama's in the US). The reason the US want to overthrow Assad is because he opposed the Qatar-Turkey NG pipeline, which Qatar proposed to run from its side of the South Pars gas field (which it shares with Iran) through Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Syria and into Turkey and Europe.  Qatar proposed this pipeline back in 2009 but Syria rejected the plan in favor of the Iran/Iraq/Syrian Islamic pipeline.
      The Iran/Iraq/Syrian Islamic pipeline would run from Iran’s massive South Pars and Assalouyeh gas fields, through Iraq, and into Syria to the Mediterranean.  From there the gas would be shipped to Europe via Syria’s ports. It's all about control of gas and oil and follows the US's standard playbook of destabilizing regimes (by funding terrorism and terrorist factions) that won't play ball with US monied interests. Once the shills have overthrown the recalcitrant leadership, a US puppet regime is installed. There is simply no doubt that these Muslim terrorist groups are largely funded by the US. Hillary's involvement in fomenting these wars in the ME is well documented.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image90
        peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Blueheron;  So we fund ISIS so they can terrorize us here at home.?  That makes a lot of sense!  I know we are not supposed to promote our own hubs.  But it is the only way I can show what ISIS is really about and what their goals are.

        http://hubpages.com/politics/What-is-th … S-and-ISIL

        Here is a pie chart on the budget.  You can see that welfare is 10% of the budget.

        http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie

        1. blueheron profile image96
          blueheronposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          "Blueheron;  So we fund ISIS so they can terrorize us here at home.?"
          Ironic, is it not?

          1. peoplepower73 profile image90
            peoplepower73posted 4 months ago in reply to this

            blueheron:  In order for something to by ironic, it has to be at least true.  Therefore, your statement is not ironic.

            1. blueheron profile image96
              blueheronposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              You are...um...not well informed. To be honest, I don't really care--at least not deeply--about the outcome of the election. What I would actually like to see is for people to read and think. In other words, I'm going to go all "Morpheus" on you and tell you that things are not what they seem, not what you've been taught. (How many years did you spend in government schools? Government, along with media, has had full sway over you mind and belief systems for most of your life. I'm betting you're rather young.)

              The reason I'd like to see people awaken from the general "memetic trance" is almost purely because of disinterested humanitarianism. I dislike seeing people duped for the same reason I dislike seeing people mistreated in other ways, and--to me at least--escape from the belief system of lies seems so easily done. Open your eyes, observe objective reality, consult with that inwardness we all possess that tells us right from wrong (no "authority" can tell you this better than you already know yourself), and discipline your mind to reason, and discipline your emotions so that they don't overwhelm your reason.

              All this is, incidentally, the very basis of Western Civilization, and not some new thing, and there is nothing difficult or arcane about it. It's easy: Just put aside all your ideas that can't be objectively verified and have their basis in fantasy or wishful thinking (especially including your belief in religion and government) and, instead of letting other people do your thinking for you, start using your eyes and your brain.

              Here's the reason I don't care to much whether you do this or not: We are living through one more of the hundreds of previous cycles of civilization's collapse. Nothing can stop this, or even slow it down much. Just as humans have a life cycle that ends inevitably in death, so do civilizations. No ones vote is going to change this.

              As Nock put it, in Our Enemy, the State, "Our pride resents the thought that the great highways of New England will one day lie deep under layers of encroaching vegetation, as the more substantial Roman roads of Old England have lain for generations; and that only a group of heavily overgrown hillocks will be left to attract the archaeologist’s eye to the hidden debris of our collapsed skyscrapers. Yet it is to just this, we know, that our civilization will come; and we know it because we know that there never has been, never is, and never will be, any disorder in nature – because we know that things and actions are what they are, and the consequences of them will be what they will be.

              "But there is no need to dwell lugubriously upon the probable circumstances of a future so far distant. What we and our more nearly immediate descendants shall see is a steady progress in collectivism running off into a military despotism of a severe type. Closer centralization; a steadily growing bureaucracy; State power and faith in State power increasing, social power and faith in social power diminishing; the State absorbing a continually larger proportion of the national income; production languishing, the State in consequence taking over one “essential industry” after another, managing them with ever-increasing corruption, inefficiency and prodigality, and finally resorting to a system of forced labour. Then at some point in this progress, a collision of State interests, at least as general as that which occurred in 1914, will result in an industrial and financial dislocation too severe for the asthenic social structure to bear; and from this the State will be left to “the rusty death of machinery,” and the casual anonymous forces of dissolution will be supreme....

              "By its own hypothesis the book is useless. Upon the very evidence it offers, no one’s political opinions are likely to be changed by it, no one’s practical attitude towards the State will be modified by it; and if they were, according to the book’s own premises, what good could they do?...

              "There are always certain alien spirits who, while outwardly conforming to the requirements of the civilization around them, still keep a disinterested regard for the plain intelligible law of things, irrespective of any practical end. They have an intellectual curiosity, sometimes touched with emotion, concerning the august order of nature; they are impressed by the contemplation of it, and like to know as much about it as they can, even in circumstances where its operation is ever so manifestly unfavourable to their best hopes and wishes. For these, a work like this, however in the current sense impractical, is not quite useless; and those of them it reaches will be aware that for such as themselves, and such only, it was written."

              You can read the whole book, Our Enemy, the State, online here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/alb … the-state/

              Or, here's a free pdf download: http://famguardian.org/Publications/Our … JKnock.pdf

              1. peoplepower73 profile image90
                peoplepower73posted 3 months ago in reply to this

                blueheron:  I read your entire missive and looked at the associated links.  First off you are wrong about me being "rather young."  You lost that bet, because I'm 77 years old, soon to be 78.  I get the feeling, you really didn't care about my reply.  You just wanted an opportunity to share what you have learned from what you think is wrong with the world and where it is headed.  It sounded almost as if you were reading scripture in a very condescending way. I get it, you think big government is going to take over everything in our lives.  There is nothing new here.  You just said it in a very intellectual way. I went to your profile page.  I think you better stick to soap making those looked like some interesting hubs.

                I consider myself a critical thinker and have learned how to research and analyze many political issues.  So let's get back on track about what this forum is really about.  It's about Hillary being vindicated for what she has been accused of, not big government taking over our lives.

                I have come to realize that one of the biggest problems in this country is Fox News.  They are the mouth piece for the republican party. For many years, they have brainwashed and taught their listeners that the Clinton's and Obama are bad people. They are so brainwashed that they cannot accept that Hillary has been cleared of all accusations. I believe a very large part of their listeners are people of faith who want to put their blind faith into something they believe in.  They don't need critical thinking because that requires too much effort.  It is easier to have Fox news do their thinking for them.  That is what is allowing Trump to rise to the level he has, so far.  I think we have more immediate problems, like Trump pushing the launch buttons on the Minute Man missiles.

                1. blueheron profile image96
                  blueheronposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  Mkay. Limiting the discussion to the subject above, read James Comey's speech in full here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-0 … ry-clinton

                  One excerpt: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

                  "For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

                  "None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

                  "I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.

                  "We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account."

                  This is perhaps the kicker: "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions." Reading comprehension required! (If anyone else did this, they'd be in the slammer.)

                  What we have here is an enumeration of crimes, followed by a recommendation not to prosecute--for no particular lawful reason, but merely because the person under investigation is Hillary Clinton.

                  Re the 30,000 emails claimed to be "lost," it is inconceivable that every national intelligence agency worldwide does not have them. (They were on an unsecured server and transmitted on other unsecured devices. Anyone with the slightest interest in these matters has the emails--including, almost certainly, NSA. Russia certainly has them.)

                  It is widely believed that the "lost" emails contain information about the Clinton Foundation, which appears to a gargantuan organization for selling information to foreign governments and laundering bribes.

                  Do I expect these emails to be leaked? Not necessarily. The ownership of highly sensitive material has tactical uses that may or may not be best served by making the information public. Putin, who doubtless has this material, may think it wiser to withhold the information at present and use it to blackmail Hillary, if she is elected. Doubtless many other nations have this material, and the threat of its release could be valuable to many nations seeking a means to influence US policy.

                  To be brief: What Hillary has done is batshit crazy. Should she become president, there is a very strong likelihood that she's pretty much pwned by a number of foreign powers.

                  It has been speculated that the FBI did not recommend prosecution because the missing emails would expose Clinton Foundation corruption at the highest levels of government, involving many, many people.

                2. Live to Learn profile image80
                  Live to Learnposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  If you are 77 then you are old enough to know that Fox News has not always been a major player in the news market. The Clintons were 'bad people' as you put it well before they had the opportunity to brain wash (if they actually are doing such)

                  You can certainly tell yourself that Christians want to put blind faith into something. That attitude is a disservice to your fellow Americans and one of the reasons we cannot rise above our problems, as a nation. With everyone thinking they are oh, so much better and oh, so much smarter than their neighbor it makes it difficult to find a place to work together as a people.

                  Good for you for playing right into the hands of the politicians.

  23. Austinstar profile image78
    Austinstarposted 4 months ago

    It's like G W Bush never existed! He is rarely mentioned. Everything is Obama's fault, soon to be Hillary's fault, or just go back and continue to blame Bill Clinton.
    It's just bizarre how the right wing nut jobs will never accept responsibility for anything!

    1. blueheron profile image96
      blueheronposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Both Democrat and Republican policies have been indistinguishable for several decades. Both parties, in terms of their actual voting record, have supported ever widening wars. Both supported TARP, QE, and the ongoing bailing out of the big banks. Both parties have supported the corporatist and globalist agenda, and support TPP. During the mid-term elections during Dubya's presidency after the commencement of the Iraq War, there was a record turn-out of voters who opposed the war and hoped that voting in an overwhelmingly Democrat Congress would bring and end to the war. (I was one of those who scurried out to vote Democrat at that time.) Voting in the Democrats had no effect. Obama was elected partly because he promised to wind down the wars in the Middle East. He expanded them. What we have is a one-party system pretending to be a two-party system.

      Both parties get their marching orders from the Deep State, thus explaining why the same policies are pursued, regardless of who is nominally in power.

      Now, re Dubya, my perception was that he was/is a not-too-bright rich-man's son in an expensive suit. And of course he was a tool. I'm not sure whether the mental deficiency was a misfortune of poor genetics, poor education and upbringing, or substance abuse.

      You almost feel sorry for some of these guys. While they are not exactly twins separated at birth, Dubya and Obama share a serious affliction: They are both almost unbelievably stupid--so stupid, in fact, that it's hard to say whether they even know they are corrupt.

      Hillary, on the other hand, shows evidence of a high level of intelligence of a low order--that is, a highly developed shrewdness in pursuit of private ends. Sadly, there are many indications that she is now suffering from physiological problems affecting mental function. She is believed to have a seizure disorder, and one petit mal seizure has been captured on video, as have many examples of silly behavior and inappropriate affect. Another clue indicating seriously declining health is her rare public appearances and non-existent press conferences. Declining health is of course to be expected in many people her age. However the unsecured server issue--on the surface--to me seems a sign of someone who has seriously lost it. It is actually weird that it was even permitted. Everyone HAD to know about it. Everyone, as in the FBI, the NSA, and the CIA. Speculating on why this was allowed to go on is, however, above my pay-scale.

      1. rhamson profile image78
        rhamsonposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        I agree there is now one party masquerading as self government for the masses. The politicians are wizards at stringing us all along thinking there will be some progress towards ending the wars, dealing with the debt and making healthcare really affordable for everyone. But we are going to rehash old arguments such as abortion (a law was passed in case no one heard), gay rights (another law was passed for that as well) and whatever issue that never gets worked out for sure. WQe are chasing our tails and losing the race.

 
working