Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy?

[craslovell]

You're telling me you can't Google "syrian human rights under bashar assad" and get reasonable results from reputable sources? Seeing some pictures of smiling children is still a micro response to a macro problem. Yeah I'm not saying people are/were running the streets like barbarian animals. I'm talking about issues such as freedom of speech and how critics of the government are treated. Or LGBT rights. Or the rights of women. Or true freedom of religion.

I'm assuming you're going to draw parallels to the US in my examples. As an American I'm not at all satisfied with the state of this country. Though if you're going to compare the level of human rights in Syria to that of the US, you're going to need to put your tin foil hat on first.

It seems to me that you may just have a hatred for Americans and the "image" of the US. I'm not concerned about Russia, or any country for that matter. I'm concerned about the crazy fucks running the show in most of them. Part of the problem in the United States is that the current culture, especially my generation has 0 fucks to give about the state of the world. They're more interested in trash mass produced music and buying stylish clothing than actually getting an education and being informed about the state of this planet. I would bet 9 out of 10 people I would stop in the street couldn't even point out Syria on a map.

[1714925724]

1714925724

[1714925724]

1714925724

[craslovell]

I will not argue against the propaganda machine being strong here in the US. That's not the root of the problem with America though. The problem as stated before is the lack of desire for the average American to actually learn. We've become an incredibly distracted society.

[BADecker]

Hillary is trustworthy. All you need to do is to figure out her direction - gun control - and you can rely on her doing her damnedest to follow her direction. Trustworthy.

[galdur]

You're telling me you can't Google "syrian human rights under bashar assad" and get reasonable results from reputable sources? Seeing some pictures of smiling children is still a micro response to a macro problem. Yeah I'm not saying people are/were running the streets like barbarian animals. I'm talking about issues such as freedom of speech and how critics of the government are treated. Or LGBT rights. Or the rights of women. Or true freedom of religion.

I'm assuming you're going to draw parallels to the US in my examples. As an American I'm not at all satisfied with the state of this country. Though if you're going to compare the level of human rights in Syria to that of the US, you're going to need to put your tin foil hat on first.

It seems to me that you may just have a hatred for Americans and the "image" of the US. I'm not concerned about Russia, or any country for that matter. I'm concerned about the crazy fucks running the show in most of them. Part of the problem in the United States is that the current culture, especially my generation has 0 fucks to give about the state of the world. They're more interested in trash mass produced music and buying stylish clothing than actually getting an education and being informed about the state of this planet. I would bet 9 out of 10 people I would stop in the street couldn't even point out Syria on a map.

Well, actually I think that what you believe are "reputable sources" is the same garbage that has been selling  one war scam after the other. Nutcases got rid of Saddam Hussein. Take a look at the results. Nutcases got rid of Ghadafi. Yep, the same familiar pattern, terrorists thrive in the ruins like in Iraq. Nutcases have been trying to get rid of Assad. Strike three.

[galdur]

I was ranting with Americans while nutcases were preparing the Iraq war. I thought it was a terrible idea that would end in disaster with fucking lunatics like Bush and Blair in charge. It was self-evident to most of the world, Much of the coalition of the willing consisted of Pacific atolls and other micro states to get up the number so it wouldn´t look too embarrassing.

[craslovell]

You're telling me you can't Google "syrian human rights under bashar assad" and get reasonable results from reputable sources? Seeing some pictures of smiling children is still a micro response to a macro problem. Yeah I'm not saying people are/were running the streets like barbarian animals. I'm talking about issues such as freedom of speech and how critics of the government are treated. Or LGBT rights. Or the rights of women. Or true freedom of religion.

I'm assuming you're going to draw parallels to the US in my examples. As an American I'm not at all satisfied with the state of this country. Though if you're going to compare the level of human rights in Syria to that of the US, you're going to need to put your tin foil hat on first.

It seems to me that you may just have a hatred for Americans and the "image" of the US. I'm not concerned about Russia, or any country for that matter. I'm concerned about the crazy fucks running the show in most of them. Part of the problem in the United States is that the current culture, especially my generation has 0 fucks to give about the state of the world. They're more interested in trash mass produced music and buying stylish clothing than actually getting an education and being informed about the state of this planet. I would bet 9 out of 10 people I would stop in the street couldn't even point out Syria on a map.

Well, actually I think that what you believe are "reputable sources" is the same garbage that has been selling  one war scam after the other. Nutcases got rid of Saddam Hussein. Take a look at the results. Nutcases got rid of Ghadafi. Yep, the same familiar pattern, terrorists thrive in the ruins like in Iraq. Nutcases have been trying to get rid of Assad. Strike three.

I'm the opposite of that. I don't want the war machine to keep rolling. I wish my country would not play world police. It's simply not our battle to fight. That doesn't mean I want to watch a foreign country rot from the inside and have their citizens killed like animals. The government here just likes to use the bleeding hearts of our population as a means to fulfill their own greedy controlling ends. It's up to the people of the nation in conflict to change the state of affairs. That doesn't imply it's fair for the people suffering in conflict filled nations to have to fight against their own governments, it's just a fact of life.

Some of the sources I'm referencing are such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. If someone refuses to believe information from any source, regardles or credibility, then where might I ask are they getting their information from?

[galdur]

Well, I doubt that this Assad guy is an angel with wings but I think he has both the right and duty to keep up order in his country. If you can point out Syria on a globe you probably know that next door is Iraq. Could it be that the mess that nutcases made in Iraq spilled over to Syria? And if so would that have created security problems in Syria? I mean, effect follows cause. It isn´t just some random series of events. And usually human rights and amnesty aren´t very high priorities when dealing with al-Queda and other terrorists. U.S. officials had no problem at all with Assad when they were shipping terror suspects to Syria for interrogation and torture. He became a bad guy virtually overnight after he had the audacity to sign a gas pipeline deal to the Mediterranean with Iran. Before then Joe Sixpacks all over the U.S. didn´t have the slightest reason to give a flying eff about Syria because nobody told them to.

[peonminer]

Asking if Hillary is trustworthy is like asking if her shit smells like roses. Loaded question.

[galdur]

When you have a population much of which has a pretty good clue about cheeseburgers, baseball, the width of Kim Kardashian´s butt and that´s pretty much it, you can´t have much of a democracy. They´d vote for Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse if the tube told them to. Over time you´ll end up with this mixture of man-children, lunatics of various degrees of psychosis, weirdos and morons in charge. I´m sorry to say this because I´m a great admirer of Americans, and I´ve known some that didn´t have a clue but I liked them all the same.

[croato]

Politicians which are in power and trustworthy are very rare, especially in big powerful countries. Power spoils people big time.

[rally]

I think so.
The job she did until now did she also do good.

[galdur]

Politicians which are in power and trustworthy are very rare, especially in big powerful countries. Power spoils people big time.

Yes, and what psychopaths love most of all is power over other people. And no, they´re extremely unlikely to come out on TV and announce that they´re totally certifiable. I think it would be a great measure in the interests of public safety to very carefully psychoanalyze people close to the top of the power pyramids of the world´s most powerful countries. And of course candidates for those positions. If you need background checks and scrutiny for people that want to buy guns you´re probably in desperate need of very thorough checks of people that can bomb entire countries one after the other into oblivion. The fact that these people don´t seem to worry about any consequences at all just carry on the more chaos, destruction, death and suffering they cause, makes them highly suspicious. In my humble opinion.

[Wilikon]

NEW EMAIL shows Pentagon ASKED Hillary to LET THEM send help to Benghazi, proving Leon Panetta LIED!!



[...]
But, if you want to know what forces were likely to be available, all you have to do is listen to, or read, the account from an ex Special Forces member who explained it to Bryan Suits on the “Dark Secret Place,” a popular radio show in Los Angeles.

In the interview from November of 2012, he explained why Panetta’s claim was a LIE, and described the CIF which stands for Commanders In extremis Force, that could have been sent to Benghazi:

    [The CIF is a] heretofore little known American option…You’ve probably never heard that before. It’s not secret per se, but it’s not publicized very much… the CIF, as it’s called is something that is available to every theater commander.

    The CIF are US army special forces soldiers who are specifically dedicated to being prepared at all times for months on end to leave with no notice, with little or no information to move by air or whatever vehicle, to a situation, that they have been determined to be the best immediate solution to. They oftentimes get in the air with absolutely no idea where they’re going or what the mission is. Oftentimes they are briefed in the air.”

    “The entire purpose of this [CIF]… in the extreme, there is no worse case than this. Something is happening right now, and we don’t have 24 hours to get Delta force in there. Something is happening right now, and that’s why these forces, the CIF are pre-positioned… to at the drop of a hat, to go anywhere and do anything.

    It’s time to explain what is angering so many people in the special operations community, because they’re aware of the CIF.

He then explained why Panetta was lying about there not being enough time to send them:

    The bottom line is this – did the president have an option? He did. What Leon Panetta said about “real-time information”, when Leon Panetta was saying that on Thursday, we know that’s a LIE. Because we’ve known for weeks that there was a predator drone orbiting the Benghazi consulate. Have US forces been sent places with less information? YES. I can personally vouch for being sent places where my initial mission was to find out what was going on.

    There’s no such principle that you don’t deploy people without information.

So there it is. Panetta and Hillary LIED to the American public over and over, and the media never pressed them enough to demand answers.

And this information has been available since a MONTH after the attack…


http://therightscoop.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-to-let-them-send-help-to-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/

[bitsmichel]

Hillary wants to revenge Bill, but has no idea about politics.

[ObscureBean]

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by 'trustworthy'. Giving the people what they want and doing what's best for the country are two different things.

[bryant.coleman]

Well, actually I think that what you believe are "reputable sources" is the same garbage that has been selling  one war scam after the other. Nutcases got rid of Saddam Hussein. Take a look at the results. Nutcases got rid of Ghadafi. Yep, the same familiar pattern, terrorists thrive in the ruins like in Iraq. Nutcases have been trying to get rid of Assad. Strike three.

All these three leaders were acting as bulwarks against the Islamic expansion in the Middle East. I would add Mohammed Najibullah of Afghanistan as well. That takes the total number of secular leaders taken out by the United States to four. On all the occasions, the Americans were supporting the hard-line Islamist rebels in order to topple these leaders. 

[Lenore]

Hillary = Trustworthy

That's like saying

2+2=10

She couldn't even save one guy in Bengazi.   What makes you think she can do anything to save us here in the US.

All she can seem to talk about is Trump and Gun Control.

We have bigger issues.

Not only that but she talks a lot about spending and what she plans on spending.  Which means she plans on spending more money they say we don't have.

She is Obama in a dress.

[bryant.coleman]

Americans think Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is about as trustworthy as Donald Trump

Definitely not. How many times Trump has lied about the political issues? And how many times has Hillary lied? Remember the sniper incident at Sarajevo airport, where she had to run for cover immediately after landing? If you don't remember, then watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

[SalmonBraker]

HELL NO!!!

[mohsin qureshi]

YES she is trustworthy; she is the best qualified candidate, Former First Lady, former US Senator from New York, former Secretary of State. Many people feel tenderly for the Clinton years, and it is easy to see why, eight years of peace and of prosperity that were followed by 8 years of 2 recessions and 2 wars.  Bill Clinton left office with the largest surplus budget in US history, and the first since the 1950s.  Who wouldn't want to bring back such an administration, especially after the disastrous Bush years. I am not seeing a downside here to another Clinton Presidency.  Let's hope Michelle Obama takes up politics in Illinois! Hillary Clinton is competent, highly intelligent, and well connected. She has all the skills necessary to be a great President, and as a plus point, her husband was one of the two best Presidents of the past 50 years.  Her political views, which are somewhat left of center, are in the right place to protect and continue the economic growth of the Obama years and to oversee the dramatic evolution to self-sustenance and ruler stability that is occurring in the Middle East. Her policy for Muslims is also very good and trustworthy, specially after the Trumps statement about Muslims.