RugbyRebels

This is all I need to know about her:

But I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump either. I'd cast my vote for Jill Stein of the Greens, without hesitation.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12913174/j ... reen-party

Oh, & let's not forget Clinton's undivided support for the Apartheid state of Israel. That's actually the main reason I oppose her

rowan wrote:But I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump either. I'd cast my vote for Jill Stein of the Greens, without hesitation.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12913174/j ... reen-party

Oh, & let's not forget Clinton's undivided support for the Apartheid state of Israel. That's actually the main reason I oppose her

Is Donald a champion of the Palestinians?

I'm not sure what Trump's view on the Palestinian situation is, come to think of it, only that he hasn't been outspoken on it in the manner that Clinton has been with her clear and unequivocal support for Israel - following on from Obama who has just announced a record 38B "aid" package to the state which is currently bombing its oppressed native population. But as I've already mentioned, I wouldn't vote for Trump either. I'd vote for Jill Stein. Read the article I just posted a link to. She has some great things to say. & she's the only one in this election who does.

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:But I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump either. I'd cast my vote for Jill Stein of the Greens, without hesitation.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12913174/j ... reen-party

Oh, & let's not forget Clinton's undivided support for the Apartheid state of Israel. That's actually the main reason I oppose her

Is Donald a champion of the Palestinians?

I don't think he is a champion of anyone but himself!

But on Israel, he has said he would cut US funding and make them pay for defence themselves, and even called them out on funding ISIS - which as you can imagine didn't go down well.

jared_7 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

rowan wrote:But I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump either. I'd cast my vote for Jill Stein of the Greens, without hesitation.

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/14/12913174/j ... reen-party

Oh, & let's not forget Clinton's undivided support for the Apartheid state of Israel. That's actually the main reason I oppose her

Is Donald a champion of the Palestinians?

I don't think he is a champion of anyone but himself!

But on Israel, he has said he would cut US funding and make them pay for defence themselves, and even called them out on funding ISIS - which as you can imagine didn't go down well.

Was that before or after this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/talks-trump-israel/

Trump is a cockwomble. It's pointless asking him anything because he just makes hit up on the spot. Ask him with which of his tiny orange hands he prefers to wank with.

WaspInWales wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:
Is Donald a champion of the Palestinians?

I don't think he is a champion of anyone but himself!

But on Israel, he has said he would cut US funding and make them pay for defence themselves, and even called them out on funding ISIS - which as you can imagine didn't go down well.

Was that before or after this:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/talks-trump-israel/

Fair play, hadn't seen that. Guess the Palestinians have even more to look forward to over the next few years then.

morepork wrote:Trump is a cockwomble. It's pointless asking him anything because he just makes hit up on the spot. Ask him with which of his tiny orange hands he prefers to wank with.

This.

Trump actually sounds a lot better on foreign policy, in spite of his blatantly racist views on immigration and building a wall and all that - which is the number one reason I'd never vote for him. Jill Stein, on the other hand, wants to cut funding to both Israel and Saudi, and doesn't hold any racist views about anything - quite the opposite, of course

To be honest I think the attempt to portay Clinton as the victim of sexist opposition to a female candidate is a little bit ironic, especially the suggestion she was not accountable for the fiasco in Libya and the email scandal which occurred when she was Secretary of State. This is where America gets it so wrong on feminism. Equality involves being accountable, not deflecting the blame, which is anathema to the feminist cause.

Chomsky and others are adamant Bush Junior wasn't even involved in policy making during his two terms as president, but nobody's suggesting this absolves the man of blame for what occurred during those tenures. Reagan, also, was almost certainly not calling the shots when the CIA helped murder 100,000 Central Americans under his watch. But he's still held accountabile.

That's the bottom line. The presidents today are basically just figureheads; spokespersons for a regime which doesn't actually change regardless which of the two major parties is in office. Everyone said Obama would never get elected while black, but it was probably due to the very fact he was an African-American that made him more electable to a nation reeling from the disasters his (white) predecessor wrought on the Middle East.

To me playing the 'sexist' card here is akin to playing the 'anti-Semitist' card on Israel. It's a form of emotional blackmail designed to silence those who actually have a moral conscience. & where did the 'sexist' card go when Dilma Rousseff was ousted in what basically amounted to a US-backed coup by pack of mostly white males of the Trump variety?

So before we start shedding crocodile tears for Hillary Clinton, who probably wouldn't even be a candidate were she not the wife of a former president, and pretending she had to walk five miles through the snow in bare feet to get to school every day, just remember what she had to say after the vicious murder of a another country's leader:

I never really bought the 'Iron Lady' tripe in the 80's.
Maggie was a Chemistry graduate FFS,.....it always seemed to me that Dennis and his golfing buddies in the city were the ones actually formulating policy.
Looking retrospectively at the monetarist policies that have crippled this country ever since you'd have to say it looks like a cabal of big business that had the reins. Dennis might not have had the political nouse to formulate policy but he was certainly in her shell-like telling her: 'xyz is a smashing fellow.....very trustworthy'.

It's not exactly earth shattering news but the rightwing are becoming more and more exposed as self-congratulatory, self-serving, privileged twats for whom cabinet positions are a bit of a lark before they start the really serious business of protecting their privileges by destabilising and then raping any country that has natural assets but doesn't have nukes.
Dave played quite a clever long game......whereas Boris, having pushed all of us under the bus, discovered he'd also pushed himself under the same bus.

Let's be fair to Hilary,.....she's more qualified than either Dave or Boris.

kk67 wrote:I never really bought the 'Iron Lady' tripe in the 80's.
Maggie was a Chemistry graduate FFS,.....it always seemed to me that Dennis and his golfing buddies in the city were the ones actually formulating policy.
Looking retrospectively at the monetarist policies that have crippled this country ever since you'd have to say it looks like a cabal of big business that had the reins. Dennis might not have had the political nouse to formulate policy but he was certainly in her shell-like telling her: 'xyz is a smashing fellow.....very trustworthy'.

It's not exactly earth shattering news but the rightwing are becoming more and more exposed as self-congratulatory, self-serving, privileged twats for whom cabinet positions are a bit of a lark before they start the really serious business of protecting their privileges by destabilising and then raping any country that has natural assets but doesn't have nukes.
Dave played quite a clever long game......whereas Boris, having pushed all of us under the bus, discovered he'd also pushed himself under the same bus.

Let's be fair to Hilary,.....she's more qualified than either Dave or Boris.

That's a marvellous pice of sexism. The Oxford graduate and barrister little lady couldn't possibly have a mind of her own.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: That's a marvellous pice of sexism. The Oxford graduate and barrister little lady couldn't possibly have a mind of her own.

Denis paid for her Bar qualifications,......how many cases did she actually deal with..?. Tax was her speciality wasn't it..?.
Not much time in court, no surprises that stealth tax has become central to how the upper class deal with this country and why they are giving away huge tax breaks to scum of the earth industrialists.

I'm basically resigned to Trump winning and on day one in the office nuking Pyongyang (because no one can tell him where the capital of ISIS is).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: That's a marvellous pice of sexism. The Oxford graduate and barrister little lady couldn't possibly have a mind of her own.

Denis paid for her Bar qualifications,......how many cases did she actually deal with..?. Tax was her speciality wasn't it..?.
Not much time in court, no surprises that stealth tax has become central to how the upper class deal with this country and why they are giving away huge tax breaks to scum of the earth industrialists.

He paid her fees, which is not at all the same thing as paying for her qualifications. nice try to row out from your spectacular sexism.

Lizard wrote:I'm basically resigned to Trump winning and on day one in the office nuking Pyongyang (because no one can tell him where the capital of ISIS is).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fear the possibility of President Trump is increasing. If he does win, the Demoncrats need to have a long hard look at themselves.

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I'm basically resigned to Trump winning and on day one in the office nuking Pyongyang (because no one can tell him where the capital of ISIS is).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fear the possibility of President Trump is increasing. If he does win, the Demoncrats need to have a long hard look at themselves.

You don't think after running a completely rigged primary campaign they already need to have a long hard look at themselves?

jared_7 wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Lizard wrote:I'm basically resigned to Trump winning and on day one in the office nuking Pyongyang (because no one can tell him where the capital of ISIS is).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fear the possibility of President Trump is increasing. If he does win, the Demoncrats need to have a long hard look at themselves.

You don't think after running a completely rigged primary campaign they already need to have a long hard look at themselves?

Probably, yet failing to beat trump will mean the end didn't justify the means.

There are many, many aspects of the US system which seem bonkers to me. From politicised offices such as Sheriffs, electing Judges, the conflicting roles of the Senate, Congress and the Office of the President, primaries and caucuses, the electoral college...

Then again I live in a country where 28% of the vote can quite easily deliver a majority government and we still haven't properly reformed the House of Lords, so...

I'm basically resigned to Clinton winning because Trump's an idiot, the US touting itself as the world champion of feminist ideals and women's equality, then even more wars in the Middle East killing countless women and girls, and resulting in more dictatorships and extremism that deny women's rights altogether. But so long as there's a female president, white middle class American women will be happy...

rowan wrote:I'm basically resigned to Clinton winning because Trump's an idiot, the US touting itself as the world champion of feminist ideals and women's equality, then even more wars in the Middle East killing countless women and girls, and resulting in more dictatorships and extremism that deny women's rights altogether. But so long as there's a female president, white middle class American women will be happy...

You are really painting white middle class American women with a broad brush there, Rowan. Quite a few of us do not buy into the "feminist" aspect of any of this, let alone think for a moment that Hillary would be a champion for anything but chaos. We don't think with our ovaries, and it's really a bit insulting to read your sexist, racist, classist and belittling comments about White Middle class American Women each and every time you weigh in on what we think.

It's not sexist, racist or classist at all. That's your attempt to blackmail someone into silence because you don't like their opinion. Clinton herself has been playing the "vote for me because I'm a woman" card and a lot of her support will come from white middle class women. Not all of them, but that's a fact which has been propounded in the media. Anyway, if you're American you're in no position to assume the moral high ground with anyone. Your country has murdered more than 20 million people since WWII, including around 10 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s, and every taxpaying American is a party to that.

Meanwhile, I think we're going to see increasing confrontation with Russia once Clinton becomes president, because America's 'Iron Lady' will have to show that she can stand up to Putin et al. That's why they've selected her to be their next representative in international affairs. I'm pretty sure America is not going to give up on Syria either, and that right now the terrorist proxies are just re-organising. Who wins? The weapons dealers, of course. Who loses? Syrian men, women and children.

rowan wrote:It's not sexist, racist or classist at all. That's your attempt to blackmail someone into silence because you don't like their opinion. Clinton herself has been playing the "vote for me because I'm a woman" card and a lot of her support will come from white middle class women. Not all of them, but that's a fact which has been propounded in the media. Anyway, if you're American you're in no position to assume the moral high ground with anyone. Your country has murdered more than 20 million people since WWII, including around 10 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s, and every taxpaying American is a party to that.

Meanwhile, I think we're going to see increasing confrontation with Russia once Clinton becomes president, because America's 'Iron Lady' will have to show that she can stand up to Putin et al. That's why they've selected her to be their next representative in international affairs. I'm pretty sure America is not going to give up on Syria either, and that right now the terrorist proxies are just re-organising. Who wins? The weapons dealers, of course.

If it's racist to say that all brown people are islamic terrorists it's no less racist to say all white americans are mass murderers. Get a grip.

But that's not what I wrote, is it? I said all taxpaying Americans, and this includes Americans of every race, gender and creed who pays taxes - and does not actively protest against their government's actions.

& how many times have we read that Trump gains most of his support from misogynist (therefore presumably male) rednecks (therefore presumably white)? But suggest Clinton gains much of hers from middle class white women and suddenly the accusations start flying.

Donald J. Trump’s support among white men, the linchpin of his presidential campaign, is showing surprising signs of weakness that could foreclose his only remaining path to victory in November.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/po ... e-men.html

rowan wrote:It's not sexist, racist or classist at all. That's your attempt to blackmail someone into silence because you don't like their opinion. Clinton herself has been playing the "vote for me because I'm a woman" card and a lot of her support will come from white middle class women. Not all of them, but that's a fact which has been propounded in the media. Anyway, if you're American you're in no position to assume the moral high ground with anyone. Your country has murdered more than 20 million people since WWII, including around 10 million Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s, and every taxpaying American is a party to that.

Meanwhile, I think we're going to see increasing confrontation with Russia once Clinton becomes president, because America's 'Iron Lady' will have to show that she can stand up to Putin et al. That's why they've selected her to be their next representative in international affairs. I'm pretty sure America is not going to give up on Syria either, and that right now the terrorist proxies are just re-organising. Who wins? The weapons dealers, of course. Who loses? Syrian men, women and children.

On such basis everyone who consumes US products, whether beer, soft drinks, music, film... is also party to it. Also the figures being used for the numbers killed by the US are nonsensical as is the idea the US has murdered them. And from where you're drawing the inspiration to lecture others on women's rights I've no idea, but if you do now think it's a valid topic perhaps have a look in a mirror and have a word with yourself