Clinton: Most Truthful Candidate with Enthusiastic Supporters

[werepossum]

Oh you must be talking about her stating:


Oh I do believe her when she says she will attack Iran if she becomes president. It is one of the reasons that it is imperative to me that she not become president.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484


Being able to enact HORRIBLE policy is not a positive in my book, it apparently is in yours.

I'm not familiar with Global Research, but in that same article it says:

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.​

Virtually everyone is in favor of using cluster bombs, our "toxic agents" have mostly been destroyed over the last decade, and nuclear weapons as deterrents is far different from using them. We hold them as deterrents hoping that we won't have to use them - and neither will anyone else. They also refer to missile defense systems as "first-strike weapons entirely for offense" which is laughably insane and even very slightly true only in the sense that any weapon, even a purely defensive weapon such as missile defense systems, also increases a nation's offensive strength. Methinks you've been duped. I'd agree that Clinton's foreign policy is largely the same as Bush's, but it's also largely the same as Obama's, and I'm guessing probably closer to Obama's than to Bush's.

However, if she even said she'd attack Iran - and given this site, I doubt she definitively said she'd attack Iran except in a discussion of Iran hypothetically attacking Israel - then it was most likely to a hand-picked group of pro-Israel Jewish millionaires or Democrat operatives. In other words, just typical politically expedient lies.

EDIT: Although if it were an actual all-out attack, then hopefully ANY American President would massively retaliate. A nation that refuses to honor its commitments to its allies is not worth saving. Note that although President Obama has been notorious for courting our enemies and insulting our friends, he has never once failed to honor our commitments to those allies. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer a President Bernie to a President Hillary, just because I think he's a much better person even though his politics are a bit farther from mine, but I don't think this is a trustworthy attack.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not familiar with Global Research, but in that same article it says:

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.​

Virtually everyone is in favor of using cluster bombs, our "toxic agents" have mostly been destroyed over the last decade, and nuclear weapons as deterrents is far different from using them. We hold them as deterrents hoping that we won't have to use them - and neither will anyone else. They also refer to missile defense systems as "first-strike weapons entirely for offense" which is laughably insane and even very slightly true only in the sense that any weapon, even a purely defensive weapon such as missile defense systems, also increases a nation's offensive strength. Methinks you've been duped. I'd agree that Clinton's foreign policy is largely the same as Bush's, but it's also largely the same as Obama's, and I'm guessing probably closer to Obama's than to Bush's.

However, if she even said she'd attack Iran - and given this site, I doubt she definitively said she'd attack Iran except in a discussion of Iran hypothetically attacking Israel - then it was most likely to a hand-picked group of pro-Israel Jewish millionaires or Democrat operatives. In other words, just typical politically expedient lies.

EDIT: Although if it were an actual all-out attack, then hopefully ANY American President would massively retaliate. A nation that refuses to honor its commitments to its allies is not worth saving. Note that although President Obama has been notorious for courting our enemies and insulting our friends, he has never once failed to honor our commitments to those allies. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer a President Bernie to a President Hillary, just because I think he's a much better person even though his politics are a bit farther from mine, but I don't think this is a trustworthy attack.

That's a remarkable way to dance around the fact that there is no nuclear threat to Israel, never really was. A credible nuclear threat involves actual, you know, nuclear weapons, something that their potential adversaries never had. The Iran deal insures that they likely never will, either.

It also ignores the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that poses a nuclear threat to anybody.

 

[werepossum]

That's a remarkable way to dance around the fact that there is no nuclear threat to Israel, never really was. A credible nuclear threat involves actual, you know, nuclear weapons, something that their potential adversaries never had. The Iran deal insures that they likely never will, either.

It also ignores the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that poses a nuclear threat to anybody.

lol Your Creator really needs to step up your Algorithms. Or at the least, reduce the Jew-hating to a lower priority response.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's a remarkable way to dance around the fact that there is no nuclear threat to Israel, never really was. A credible nuclear threat involves actual, you know, nuclear weapons, something that their potential adversaries never had. The Iran deal insures that they likely never will, either.

It also ignores the fact that Israel is the only country in the region that poses a nuclear threat to anybody.

lol Your Creator really needs to step up your Algorithms. Or at the least, reduce the Jew-hating to a lower priority response.

Straight to bullshit "Jew Hater" shaming so soon?

Your desperation is showing.

 

[werepossum]

Straight to bullshit "Jew Hater" shaming so soon?

Your desperation is showing.

lol Sure it is. Just keep telling yourself that you're a fine piece of code.

 

[ivwshane]

lol Your Creator really needs to step up your Algorithms. Or at the least, reduce the Jew-hating to a lower priority response.

Jew hating? Do you care to point out the line you are referencing?

 

[Jhhnn]

Jew hating? Do you care to point out the line you are referencing?

He's referencing that I don't fall for Bibi's guilt tripping & fear mongering hysteria.

 

[werepossum]

Jew hating? Do you care to point out the line you are referencing?

His entire post, from good, noble Iran to dangerous Israel. It's just standard proggie Jew-hating. Not the good, tame ones who do as they are told and condemn Israel, of course. Just those dangerous feral ones who dare to have their own country and fight back when those peaceful Muslims try to wipe them out.

You guys REALLY don't like it when minorities get off the reservation.

 

[Bowfinger]

His entire post, from good, noble Iran to dangerous Israel. It's just standard proggie Jew-hating. Not the good, tame ones who do as they are told and condemn Israel, of course. Just those dangerous feral ones who dare to have their own country and fight back when those peaceful Muslims try to wipe them out.

You guys REALLY don't like it when minorities get off the reservation.

Calling someone a Jew hater just because they criticize Israel is as dishonest and as asinine as those who play the racist card whenever someone criticizes Blacks. Indeed, it's even more dishonest since Israel is a country, not a religion.

 

[ivwshane]

His entire post, from good, noble Iran to dangerous Israel. It's just standard proggie Jew-hating. Not the good, tame ones who do as they are told and condemn Israel, of course. Just those dangerous feral ones who dare to have their own country and fight back when those peaceful Muslims try to wipe them out.

You guys REALLY don't like it when minorities get off the reservation.

So which post was this? I saw nothing about Iran being noble. I did see him state the fact that Iran didn't have nuclear weapons and I saw him state that because Iran signed an agreement that they will never have nuclear weapons.

This wouldn't be your imagination running wild again because of those evil progressives would it?

 

[Jhhnn]

His entire post, from good, noble Iran to dangerous Israel. It's just standard proggie Jew-hating. Not the good, tame ones who do as they are told and condemn Israel, of course. Just those dangerous feral ones who dare to have their own country and fight back when those peaceful Muslims try to wipe them out.

You guys REALLY don't like it when minorities get off the reservation.

Anybody not trying to defend their own bullshit can easily see I never said that.

 

[woolfe9998]

FYI, Clinton's averaged favorability rating across polls is not 31 but 40.5.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

As you can see from the list, the CBS/Times poll is an extreme low outlier. Gotta love people who cherry pick polls to prove whatever point they want to prove.

The same CBS poll is also low for Trump, but not by as much:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating

Trump aggregates at 31, not 24.

 

[woolfe9998]

Calling someone a Jew hater just because they criticize Israel is as dishonest and as asinine as those who play the racist card whenever someone criticizes Blacks. Indeed, it's even more dishonest since Israel is a country, not a religion.

Hmm, by the same token, what do we call it when someone is against illegal immigrants but never says he hates Mexicans? I think the term going around is "dog whistle racism." Is there such thing as "dog whistle anti-semitism?" I don't see why not. Sauce for the goose.

I see the hypocrisy going both ways here.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh you must be talking about her stating:


Oh I do believe her when she says she will attack Iran if she becomes president. It is one of the reasons that it is imperative to me that she not become president.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-if-im-president-we-will-attack-iran/5460484


Being able to enact HORRIBLE policy is not a positive in my book, it apparently is in yours.

Even your own idiotic crank source claims she said this in the context of Iran attacking Israel. Yet you leave that qualifier out and quote out of context.

 

[Bowfinger]

Hmm, by the same token, what do we call it when someone is against illegal immigrants but never says he hates Mexicans? I think the term going around is "dog whistle racism." Is there such thing as "dog whistle anti-semitism?" I don't see why not. Sauce for the goose.

I see the hypocrisy going both ways here.

I can't speak for others. For myself, I've said that Trump isn't necessarily racist himself. He merely panders to racists. In the same sense, I can see how a public figure might attack Israel to pander to "Jew haters," even if he wasn't personally anti-Semitic. None of which makes Jhhnn a "Jew hater" based on his comments about Israrel, Iran, and nuclear weapons. His comments were factually accurate, albeit inconvenient for America's warmongers.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hmm, by the same token, what do we call it when someone is against illegal immigrants but never says he hates Mexicans? I think the term going around is "dog whistle racism." Is there such thing as "dog whistle anti-semitism?" I don't see why not. Sauce for the goose.

I see the hypocrisy going both ways here.

You're really, really reaching with that, certainly within the context of what I offered. No credible nuclear threat has ever existed towards Israel because none of her potential adversaries ever had nuclear weapons. The agreement with Iran basically insures that Iran never will. They leaped at the opportunity of trade & international respectability in return for divestiture of stocks of LEU & weapons capability.

If the threat were real, that should be good news for Israel but Bibi claims to the contrary. That should lead honest people to question his motives entirely.

If anything, Hillary will probably buy into it deeper than Obama ever did.

 

[werepossum]

Calling someone a Jew hater just because they criticize Israel is as dishonest and as asinine as those who play the racist card whenever someone criticizes Blacks. Indeed, it's even more dishonest since Israel is a country, not a religion.

You misunderstand me. I didn't call it Jew-hating because he criticized Israel; Israel regularly does things which invite and even demand criticism. I call it Jew-hating when the very mention of Israel (or even Iran), even obliquely, brings forth an attack on Israel.

 

[werepossum]

Hmm, by the same token, what do we call it when someone is against illegal immigrants but never says he hates Mexicans? I think the term going around is "dog whistle racism." Is there such thing as "dog whistle anti-semitism?" I don't see why not. Sauce for the goose.

I see the hypocrisy going both ways here.

Of course. We all have topics about which we are less than rational. That is human nature. But as I said to Bowfinger, my reasoning here isn't based on criticism of Israel, but rather on the fact that for some, even an oblique mention of Israel brings on an obligatory attack.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

How the hell are people more enthusiastic for Hillary than Bernie?

For that matter, how the hell is anyone enthusiastic for Hillarly? :hmm:

I can think of two major reasons:

1. wanting Sanders for president basically means you think our government is broken (if not extremely fucked up) and needs someone who won't maintain the status quo like Hillary (i.e. the situation is seen as more dire/depressing to begin with)

2. he's currently a major long shot to win the nomination outright (its easier to be enthusiastic when you're winning)

the fact that Sanders out-raised Hillary $44M (breaking his Feb record) to $23.5M in March tells me his base is far more *passionate* than Hillary's, seeing as how Sanders is amassing his donation totals with far smaller individual contributions.

 

[Jhhnn]

You misunderstand me. I didn't call it Jew-hating because he criticized Israel; Israel regularly does things which invite and even demand criticism. I call it Jew-hating when the very mention of Israel (or even Iran), even obliquely, brings forth an attack on Israel.

What attack? Merely mentioning that Israel is the only nation in the region capable of threatening their neighbors with nuclear weapons isn't an attack but rather a statement of fact.

 

[woolfe9998]

I can't speak for others. For myself, I've said that Trump isn't necessarily racist himself. He merely panders to racists. In the same sense, I can see how a public figure might attack Israel to pander to "Jew haters," even if he wasn't personally anti-Semitic. None of which makes Jhhnn a "Jew hater" based on his comments about Israrel, Iran, and nuclear weapons. His comments were factually accurate, albeit inconvenient for America's warmongers.

I didn't say Jhnnn was a Jew hater. That's what Werepossum said. I just find it ironic that it's OK to say someone is racist for taking a certain political stance on a particular issue like immigration, which involves no explicit racism, but anti-semitism can't be merely inferred from any political stance. It must be made explicit. You can't have one set of rules that you apply to your political opponents and another set for yourself. Whatever your own practices in that regard, Jhnnn is possibly the person around here most likely to use the phrase "dog whistle racism" and I'm pretty sure that means racism that isn't made explicit.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course. We all have topics about which we are less than rational. That is human nature. But as I said to Bowfinger, my reasoning here isn't based on criticism of Israel, but rather on the fact that for some, even an oblique mention of Israel brings on an obligatory attack.

Yeah, I'm not sure I would agree with your inference about Jhnnn, but as I've said in this thread and argued in others, anti-semitism can be inferred depending on the pattern and content of the criticism. For example, constantly applying double standards to Israel vs. its geo-political rivals. Comparing Israel to the Nazis which is totally ahistorical and quite obviously is meant to upset Jews. And as you say, the reflexive, knee jerk tendency to bash Israel whenever an opponent of Israel is criticized.

There are several reasons for these kinds of biases on the left. Anti-semitism is only one, though the inference grows stronger the more extreme the bias. I doubt it applies in Jhnnn's case. YMMV.

 

[woolfe9998]

You're really, really reaching with that, certainly within the context of what I offered. No credible nuclear threat has ever existed towards Israel because none of her potential adversaries ever had nuclear weapons. The agreement with Iran basically insures that Iran never will. They leaped at the opportunity of trade & international respectability in return for divestiture of stocks of LEU & weapons capability.

If the threat were real, that should be good news for Israel but Bibi claims to the contrary. That should lead honest people to question his motives entirely.

If anything, Hillary will probably buy into it deeper than Obama ever did.

You're entitled to all your opinions about Israel and Iran. I don't agree with terribly many of them, but that wasn't my point. Nor was my point to agree with Werepossum's conclusions. I'm just saying that when it comes to alleging bigotry, the same standards apply across the board. If bigotry can be inferred when not made explicit in one case, it can be in another.

For the record, I am not sure, but I tend to doubt you're anti-semitic. However, I think it's quite clear that anti-semitism in general is a factor in the stance of many on the left who criticize Israel. In the past, I've cited two polls from different organizations which show liberals in the US are more likely than conservatives to agree with negative statements about Jews which have nothing to do with Israel, like "The Jews caused the Wall Street crash in 2008," and "the Jews control the media" and "the Jews are more loyal to other Jews than to their own countries." That polling is for the US. Anti-semitism is vastly worse in Europe.

 

[Bowfinger]

I didn't say Jhnnn was a Jew hater. ...

Of course not, nor did I intend to suggest you did.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're entitled to all your opinions about Israel and Iran. I don't agree with terribly many of them, but that wasn't my point. Nor was my point to agree with Werepossum's conclusions. I'm just saying that when it comes to alleging bigotry, the same standards apply across the board. If bigotry can be inferred when not made explicit in one case, it can be in another.

For the record, I am not sure, but I tend to doubt you're anti-semitic. However, I think it's quite clear that anti-semitism in general is a factor in the stance of many on the left who criticize Israel. In the past, I've cited two polls from different organizations which show liberals in the US are more likely than conservatives to agree with negative statements about Jews which have nothing to do with Israel, like "The Jews caused the Wall Street crash in 2008," and "the Jews control the media" and "the Jews are more loyal to other Jews than to their own countries." That polling is for the US. Anti-semitism is vastly worse in Europe.

Please. You quoted me & took off on a tangent about bigotry, didn't even address what I offered.

When you look at the words on the page, the ones I typed, the notion that they were bigoted in any way is just flat wrong.

The accusation of anti-semitism is a very potent thing in this country & is intended to shame the victim into silence, particularly when the victim offers anything that might tend to discredit Israeli PR efforts.

Which is really what werepossum objects to, my pointing out that the "nuclear threat" to Israel has been greatly exaggerated to bring out a protector response in this country. It's important to acknowledge that was part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq & was a huge part of hostility towards Iran. Yes, we will protect our Israeli friends. That doesn't mean we have to destroy their rivals or that we should allow ourselves to be manipulated into thinking that we should.