It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary hate- but would she really be that bad a President?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: CB328
Is your question whether I'd rather vote for someone who is honest about supporting Wall Street or someone who supports Wall Street and lies about it?

I'd rather vote for Bernie but the fix is in.

It appears the DNC has stacked the deck to make sure Hillary is the nominee no matter what the people want.

When you are bitching about President Trump in 2 years remember you're the ones that put him there by ignoring the will of the people you're supposed to represent.


Love it!

Also, if Trump does not beat her the mid-terms will be a landslide Republican win.. and if big enough to over-ride her veto, then they can pass ANYTHING.

Think about it. Yes, people dislike her that much. And yes CB, she has earned that spite with her deception, obvious lies, disrespect for the people, and utter elitist lawlessness.
edit on 26-2-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   
she cant even keep track of her own lies and people want her to run a country? lord help us.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: EightTF3
You going to make this same crappy thread every 2 weeks?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


This is a good point.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I dont see how any of them, from any party, will make any real difference.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

For better or (more likely) for worse, I think any of the 3 leading candidates would make a HUGE difference.

The powers of the POTUS have grown considerably over the last several administrations.
edit on 27-2-2016 by abe froman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Oh no you didn't. I am with you and I honestly don't see that Obama,has done a bad job at all. I'm voting for Hill. I think shell kick Ass as president. She certainly has recognition across the globe.
I know I'm in the minority but I've always been.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman




The powers of the POTUS have grown considerably over the last several administrations.


Agreed.

I'd take anyone, even a politician, who would agree that politicians hold more power than they should.
edit on 27-2-2016 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CB328

Oh no you didn't. I am with you and I honestly don't see that Obama,has done a bad job at all. I'm voting for Hill. I think shell kick Ass as president. She certainly has recognition across the globe.
I know I'm in the minority but I've always been.


I notice you didn't say why...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie

What's wrong with the clinton foundation or associations with wall street. The stock exchange is the backbone of American enterprise. Really doesn't anyone on here have a stock portfolio? Or am I surrounded by the poor and destitute?
I'm perplexed sometimes. You guys want legalized weed, less interference from government better wages disclosure less religion better education etc. These are not totally conservative ideas yet everybody claims to be conservative.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I would like to hear a real reason why Hillary would be so unbelievably terrible as President as almost everyone on this forum claims. Not some totally subjective BS about how she's so terrible, or she's evil, or hideous, or her mere presence in the white house would somehow destroy the country. And don't whine about how 4 people died in Libya when Bush killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's.

I want to hear a real, logical explanation of how someone has lots of experience and is rated as being pretty moderate overall, so much so that she has to pretend to be liberal than she is in this election, would somehow be so radical and extreme that it would harm the country.

Look at all the insane and idiotic hate for Obama and yet the country is in pretty good shape at the end of his term. I can't see how it would be seriously different under Hillary. I'm not voting for her unless I have to, but I can't stand all the insanity from the right about her and someone needs to call it out as ridiculous.


The country is in good shape compared to? We're still mired in wars, we now have a healthcare law that the true financial consequences of will not be known for years, we have riots in the streets, we have racial tensions (who would think electing a black President would make people think race was a bigger problem?), we have the IRS targeting political opponents, we have a nuclear agreement with a country that laughs at us, we have funded terrorists, we have a trade agreement that is devastating, we have a global warming agreement that other countries will cheat on, we have increased energy costs, we have colleges promoting segregation in safe spaces, and we have more people that need government assistance to survive because unemployment numbers are fraud.

I'm sure I missed some things in there.

What's crazy is that I have not encountered a single person, in a field that has me closely interacting with many thousands of people a year, that think Hillary is anything but a felon. The only place I see it, the absolute only places I have experienced a single Hillary supporter, have been people who post online and in the media stories. At what point do we have to start considering that all this support, that is somehow going to beat Trump or has legitimately defeated Sanders, is completely manufactured?
edit on 2/27/16 by Ksihkehe because: Typo



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Maybe is could be the "unethical nature" of paying money to the Clinton Foundation in order to receive favors?

Ya Think?

www.salon.com...



As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn’t, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”

The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.




Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
www.ibtimes.com...



In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.



www.washingtontimes.com...

edit on 27-2-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Yep, Corruption.

Right here in River City.

With a capital "C" and that rhymes with "B"

and that stands for Hillary.
edit on 27-2-2016 by abe froman because: Realized that "C" and "B" both stand for Hillary. (Clinton)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: abe froman

How foreign cash made Bill and Hillary ‘filthy rich’

nypost.com...





Records show that Bill’s earnings from appearance fees — both foreign and domestic — spiked at $17 million in 2012, Hillary’s last year at State.

During Hillary’s four-year stint as secretary of state, the ex-president earned about $48 million of a $105 million speaking haul amassed between 2001 and 2013.

More than half of the $48 million was paid by companies in China, Japan, Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Cayman Islands, among others.

The author writes that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

Bill Clinton is believed to be the richest living ex-president and one of the 10 wealthiest ever.

Most estimates put the power couple’s combined net worth at $100 million to $200 million.



Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

www.theatlantic.com...



The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs.

“Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation

Democrats are hurtling toward a farce. The coalition that insists on the corrupting effect of Citizens United and the unlimited campaign contributions it permits is poised to nominate a couple that has seen riches flow from big banks to their personal accounts. How can mainstream Democratic Party beliefs about the corrupting effects of money in politics and the perniciousness of Big Finance possibly be squared with elevating as their leaders a couple as cozy with Big Finance as anyone in American politics?

Even Democrats who aren’t concerned about the agenda of Big Finance ought to ask themselves if America is best served by a president and first spouse who care so little about preserving the confidence that the public can reasonably have in the integrity of their actions.





Does that answer everyone's questions? If anyone votes for the Clintons, never shame yourselves by EVER, EVER mentioning Big Money in politics because you will be a hypocrite.
edit on 27-2-2016 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Hillary Clinton is the same as the rest of them... an uncharged criminal...



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: madmac5150

Not the same as the rest of them, she's the only one currently under FBI investigation.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: madmac5150

Not the same as the rest of them, she's the only one currently under FBI investigation.


ALL politicians are unpaid criminals, regardless of party affiliation...

Furthermore, politicians and diapers should be changed often, and for the same reason...
edit on 27-2-2016 by madmac5150 because: That's all I have to say about that



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
She associates with Robert Kagan and espouses support for the Kagan foreign policy (think project for new american century founding member).

Robert Kagan: Republican, Neocon, PNAC co-founder endorses Clinton


We need to remember that Robert Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland. Nuland had been a foreign policy adviser to VP Dick Cheney. When Obama was elected and named Clinton as Secretary of State, HRC brought Victoria Nuland into the State Department. Originally serving as an information official conducting press sessions for State, Nuland soon transitioned to Assistant Secretary of State for Eurasian Affairs. From this post, Nuland planned, orchestrated, and directed the disastrous coup in Ukraine.

This shows us that we can expect more turmoil, warring, and regime change in the Middle East, Eurasia, and around the world. I find this to be extremely frightening.

Neocon Kagan Endorses Hillary Clinton

She endorses Kissinger as being anything other than a real life Darth Vader.

Her family association with Epstein (billionaire convicted of paedophilia where accusers state he was essentially running a blackmail ring. The guy had parties Clinton attended because he was "owed" by them. Epstein also shares Trump's taste in young women according to Trump).

The above hints that she will continue Obama's all out war on whistle blowers and his administration's hatred of transparency.

Also, all the wall street money, her "charity", etc . . .



As Bush said Fool me once uh can't fool me again! (or something like that).

-FBB
edit on 27-2-2016 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

edit on 27-2-2016 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 202



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: madmac5150

Not the same as the rest of them, she's the only one currently under FBI investigation.


I'd love to see what's found in the emails of the other candidates.

So far in Hillary's there seems to be about 20 emails sent to her and through human error were not coded correctly.

That human error thingy isn't Hillary exclusive.

Lets investimate all of them.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Funny thing is the leading Republican candidate.....Donald Trump is also under investigation for running a scam university...and scamming hundreds of people.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: madmac5150

Not the same as the rest of them, she's the only one currently under FBI investigation.


I'd love to see what's found in the emails of the other candidates.

So far in Hillary's there seems to be about 20 emails sent to her and through human error were not coded correctly.

That human error thingy isn't Hillary exclusive.

Lets investimate all of them.





As an ex-security guy in charge of National Security...

Here is MY issue.

The emails in question are classified as TS/SCI.

Hillary HAD to be "read into" those programs... i.e. she knew EXACTLY what she was doing storing that level of intel on her own server.

Had I done what she has done, I would be in Leavenworth. That is a FACT.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join