Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hillary?

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#26 Post by Hype » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:01 pm

It would probably be smarter to ignore Larry in this case because he's clearly just talking out of his ass based on some set of assumptions he doesn't want to divulge, but this last bit makes no sense:
Hillary hasn't been convicted, but that doesn't make it any less of a criminal.
Yes it does. Either you're using 'criminal' metaphorically, to refer to her character or some specific actions you think she *should* be criminally convicted of, or that are tantamount to criminality, or you're just using it the same dumb hyperbolic way lefty activists do when they call Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, "war criminals". That's just as false if taken literally, but it obviously means that what these people think is that very clear specific actions by these men in the Bush presidency were war crimes, and there's certainly some evidence that a plausible case could be brought against them. But I honestly don't see how this same logic is applicable to Hillary Clinton, even to her time as Sec. of State for Obama. What specific incidents/events/facts are being used to justify either a straightforward or metaphorical use of 'criminal' in some non-trivial way that makes her, above any other politician, one?

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#27 Post by Angry Canine » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:31 pm

She hasn't been convicted of a crime, so no full fledged criminal behavior, but the evidence of shady dealings reached "don't vote for" long ago. Yet keeps building up. Nearly day to day.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#28 Post by Hype » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:18 pm

Maybe I'm asking for too much, but that's the same thing I always hear... appeals to "the evidence". Maybe there is evidence, but I've looked and I don't see it. Is there a list of these shady dealings somewhere that isn't the standard set of debunked things that Republicans have been trying to use to smear her (and Bill) for literally 25 years?

I was hoping maybe some of the Americans here would know of something more useful than the sort of vague opinion column attacks that anyone can find by googling.

This article is the clearest thing I can find: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... zi/396182/

This is murkier: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... rs/384976/

Here's Iran's national press selectively quoting someone to call her a criminal in a headline: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/07/30 ... -racketeer

But ... why would I believe Iran? :confused:

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#29 Post by Angry Canine » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:20 pm

Just take the e-mail server. Yes there is nothing prosecutable as a crime. But a huge amount of highly unethical activity, and when investigations through the past several decades make the same sort of conclusion of not criminal, but quite unethical. You can't just keep saying not QUITE criminal and ignoring it.

As far back as the end of Bill's second term, I wished he could run a third time, but was glad at least she'd be going....or so we thought.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#30 Post by Hype » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:06 pm

Angry Canine wrote:Just take the e-mail server. Yes there is nothing prosecutable as a crime. But a huge amount of highly unethical activity, and when investigations through the past several decades make the same sort of conclusion of not criminal, but quite unethical. You can't just keep saying not QUITE criminal and ignoring it.

As far back as the end of Bill's second term, I wished he could run a third time, but was glad at least she'd be going....or so we thought.
Okay, so for you it is the email thing. But like, what about it exactly? You call it "unethical". But what, specifically, was unethical about the use of the private email server? And would this be enough on its own to make you think Hillary Clinton is "bad"? Why? You refer to "a huge amount of highly unethical activity". What is a "huge amount" and what constitutes "highly unethical"?

On the emails alone, I have to admit I don't really understand how it could be viewed as unethical (let alone "highly"), rather than, say, a bit careless. Take the Washington Post's fact check of some of Hillary's claims about it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac ... -truthful/
Here’s how Comey put it in his lengthy statement when he announced the completion of the investigation: “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.”

Comey said “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.”

He added: “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.” He noted that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

In her response to Wallace, Clinton at one point appeared to deflect responsibility to her aides: “I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.”
I'm not sure what to make of that, or how serious it is in the scheme of things, or if it qualifies as unethical. But maybe it does. But is it the sort of serious unethical thing that disqualifies politicians more generally from support?

User avatar
Angry Canine
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:08 pm
Location: Digging for fire in No. KY/Cincy

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#31 Post by Angry Canine » Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:54 pm

Hype wrote: Okay, so for you it is the email thing. But like, what about it exactly? You call it "unethical". But what, specifically, was unethical about the use of the private email server? And would this be enough on its own to make you think Hillary Clinton is "bad"? Why? You refer to "a huge amount of highly unethical activity". What is a "huge amount" and what constitutes "highly unethical"?
I hardly said it "IS the email thing," rather a perfect example recent and right on top of the huge pile. It is highly unethical because it is not allowed, so it was done while they are well aware it wasn't allowed. She keeps clinging to the excuse that both Powell, and Rice had (but that was before it was disallowed). Its point was clearly to allow things to be kept from the US Govt. and people, and who knows what it may still be successfully doing.

And the other things are just so numerous. Hype, I'm well aware that you began paying attention thinking about, maybe as early as I did, but you are also much younger, and outside the States (I realize how close), but there's a very big difference actually living in the States, and paying attention, for her whole time in National politics.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#32 Post by nausearockpig » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:40 pm

jesus people... Hype's question isn't that hard is it? He wants a specific list of things about Hillary, or that she's done, that make people out there think she's not fit to lead, or is a bad person.. That sort of thing (right hype?)..

Like:
1) she wants to ban abortions
2) she wants to put a wall up between the USA and Mexico
3) she wants to remove any checks when buying guns (including mental health checks)
4) she wants a foreign power to help her hack other presidential candidates' email accounts - and possibly get national security secrets out of the country into another country's hands.
5) she wants to ban gays, and lesbians and transgenders from being served in hospitals and cafes
6) she rapes little children then eats their entrails whilst shitting in the mouths of those same children's mothers
7) she wants to tattoo numbers or bar codes on all muslims or other minority groups
8) she thinks black people are bad and shoudl be removed from the USA
9) she thinks that women having the same rights as men is a dangerous concept

that sort of thing....

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#33 Post by mockbee » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:58 pm

I think the general sentiment to the question is that she is a most typical politician, who has been around too long, who really really wants to be president.

Add to the fact that she is a woman for our majority alpha male society, and this is why I think Trump will be our next president...

:scared:

My answer is that Hillary is a fairly bad persuader (bad at being a politician) and that is what is objectionably bad about HiIlary.


I don't know if that is her fault, or the fault of our society.

:noclue:

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#34 Post by nausearockpig » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:08 pm

Yeah, I'm sure that she, like the larger majority of all pollies sits somewhere on the scale of "Not that good a person, like a used car salseman" to "Evil cunt, rapist, child killer, thief, murderer, destroyer of lives".

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#35 Post by mockbee » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:32 pm

I actually think she is most likely a good and decent person. There is no evidence to the contrary.

She's just a little clumsy, I would argue, when it comes to being a politician in our current political climate.

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#36 Post by nausearockpig » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:41 pm

mockbee wrote:I actually think she is most likely a good and decent person. There is no evidence to the contrary.

She's just a little clumsy, I would argue, when it comes to being a politician in our current political climate.
As if EVIDENCE is required for this sort of shit... :lolol:

User avatar
Mescal
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:23 am

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#37 Post by Mescal » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:40 pm

Angry Canine wrote:She hasn't been convicted of a crime, so no full fledged criminal behavior, but the evidence of shady dealings reached "don't vote for" long ago. Yet keeps building up. Nearly day to day.
In what way did Hillary have 'more shady dealings' than, let's say, Dondald Trump?

User avatar
Mescal
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:23 am

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#38 Post by Mescal » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:42 pm

Angry Canine wrote:Just take the e-mail server. Yes there is nothing prosecutable as a crime. But a huge amount of highly unethical activity, and when investigations through the past several decades make the same sort of conclusion of not criminal, but quite unethical. You can't just keep saying not QUITE criminal and ignoring it.

As far back as the end of Bill's second term, I wished he could run a third time, but was glad at least she'd be going....or so we thought.
What is this thing about the e-mails?

What's the big fucking deal?

If that is the only thing she done wrong in her 40 years + political carreer, you guys should be glad

User avatar
Mescal
Posts: 2394
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:23 am

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#39 Post by Mescal » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:48 pm

Ok, so, I answered before I read Hype's posts.

So yeah, I'm with Hype on this. What's so bad about Hillary? She's an ambitious, intelligent woman, and she's been in politics for ages. She knows her shit/her way around, ....

If she would have a penis, she would win by a landslide

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#40 Post by nausearockpig » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:53 am

Mescal wrote:So yeah, I'm with Hype on this. What's so bad about Hillary? She's an ambitious, intelligent woman, and she's been in politics for ages. She knows her shit/her way around, ....
I don't think it's that per se, I think it's more that guessing by the level of hate towards her she's not completely clean and "good". Or you could argue that she's done things to get where she is, and a lot of people don't like those things. Dunno.

Read this below. A rape surviror wrote to her.
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... -i-ca.html

To be honest I don't know anything about her, and what I know of Trump is from discussions with friends and what I see online - which I guess is what most of us "know"... For instance from what I heard on TV and the interweb, I thought Obama was a good president who tried to do right by his country. Apparently not?

I'm sure someone else has said this but I think a lot of people would vote for her as as the lesser of two evils. Mind you the gap between the two, is in my opinion quite large. But that's another story for another topic.. hahah. I think a lot of people would vote this way because they're not very invested in politics, and therefore not very well informed of the policies etc. I think this is what a lot of pollies rely on to get votes.
Mescal wrote:If she would have a penis, she would win by a landslide
Ha haha probably. She is white after all, that alone puts her ahead of the current guy in a lot of people's minds

User avatar
Matz
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:58 am
Location: Denmark

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#41 Post by Matz » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:14 am

I'm looking forward to the debates between these to, should be interesting and entertaining

User avatar
nausearockpig
Posts: 3904
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:03 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#42 Post by nausearockpig » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:23 am

Matz wrote:I'm looking forward to the debates between these to, should be interesting and entertaining
Trump: You whore!
Clinton: Wait, what.
Trump: Satan!!
Clinton: What?
Trump: Deceiver!!!
Clinton: .....
Trump: THE DEVIL!!!
Clinton: erm...
Trump: I like fruit, but not blacks..
Clinton: ......

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#43 Post by Hype » Tue Aug 02, 2016 8:16 am

Ha haha probably. She is white after all, that alone puts her ahead of the current guy in a lot of people's minds
Actually, back when she ran against Obama for the nomination the last time, I remember very clearly saying on these boards something like: "America may be racist, but it's more misogynist." (Not that America is particularly more misogynist than other countries, although among secular democracies it is one of the only ones left not to have had a woman leader...)

I have to admit I preferred Clinton over Obama from a policy perspective. I like Obama a lot, and I have a lot of respect for what he has managed to do in 8 years despite himself and the Republicans. But it was always clear to me that Americans can overlook skin colour if the choice is between a man and a woman (which I guess is why calling Donald Trump "orange" isn't going to work), because there are implicit and explicit biases that work against any woman in a position of power -- not just power over men, but women too.

There are lots of studies and survey evidence showing women professors are systematically judged as more harsh, less qualified, less intelligent, etc., than their male counterparts. There are studies showing the same phenomenon in offices. Women leaders are perceived as shrill, angry, and entitled, when men who say and do the same things are perceived as authoritative, strong, and decisive.

That said, there could still be good reasons to think that Hillary Clinton is a particularly bad candidate for president aside from being a woman and wife of a former president. I just haven't been able to wade through the obvious bias and opinion shit to find anything definitive that would justify the amount of disdain Hillary receives as a candidate and a person, so I thought maybe there was something I was just missing. So far I don't think that's the case. The email server scandal doesn't seem to me to be good enough, because even if it was a stupid mistake on her part, Hillary's been hated for decades before that happened, and the Republicans were looking for anything they could to discredit her.

User avatar
Larry B.
Posts: 7341
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:25 am
Location: Santiago

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#44 Post by Larry B. » Thu Aug 04, 2016 2:55 pm

Here are a few gems.

Clinton celebrates her role in killing #Libya's head of state which led to ISIS takeover: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760225209358114816

Hillary Clinton took cash from, was director of, company that did deals with ISIS: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760145201008668672
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/pari ... y-clinton/

(I think the amount was $100,000 that Clinton took)
The City of Paris has struck a corporate partnership with French industrial giant, Lafarge, recently accused of secretly sponsoring the Islamic State (Isis or Daesh) for profit.

Documents obtained by several journalistic investigations reveal that Lafarge has paid taxes to the terror group to operate its cement plant in Syria, and even bought Isis oil for years.

Yet according to the campaign group, SumOfUs, Lafarge is the corporate partner and sand provider to the City of Paris for this summer’s Paris-Plages urban beach event. The project run by Office of the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, will create artificial beaches along the river Seine in the centre and northeast of Paris.

Lafarge also has close ties to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Apart from being a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself was a director of Lafarge in the early 1990s, and did legal work for the firm in the 1980s. During her connection to Lafarge, the firm was implicated in facilitating a CIA-backed covert arms export network to Saddam Hussein.
Blood money

An investigative report by the French daily Le Monde revealed in June that the corporation, the world’s leader in construction materials, had paid taxes to Isis middlemen, as well as other armed groups in Syria, to protect its cement business operations in the country.

But the Le Monde story only covered a fraction of the revelations. Previous investigations by Zaman al-Wasl, an independent news outlet run by elements of the Syrian opposition, revealed that Lafarge had even regularly bought oil from Isis.

Al-Wasl’s original investigation, which Le Monde appears to have borrowed from considerably, was published in February, and based on internal documents and emails from the company. Al-Wasl reported that the CEO of Lafarge Cement Syria, Frederic Jolibois, had personally instructed his firm to make payments to Isis.
Under fire

France has repeatedly been targeted by Daesh, and Daesh-inspired terrorists, over the last few years. The latest mass atrocity occurred in Nice, where 84 people were killed on Bastille Day. On Tuesday, a priest in Normandy was brutally murdered by Isis terrorists.

Paris itself has been repeatedly attacked by terrorists. On 13 November 2015, Isis coordinated a series of terror strikes in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis, killing 130 people and injuring 368.

Yet Paris’ new corporate partner, according to Le Monde, sponsored the Isis terror group in Syria in the preceding years to keep up company profits.
Profit over people

Emails discovered by Le Monde reveal that Lafarge – which merged with Swiss cement maker Holcim in 2015 – had made “arrangements […] with the jihadist group to continue production until September 19, 2014.”

Most of these emails seem to have been first obtained by Zaman al-Wasl. Lafarge’s Syria operations ended on that date when Isis took over the firm’s facility in Jalabiya.

Documents show that Lafarge’s Paris headquarters were fully aware of the business deal with Isis. The company even sent a representative into Isis territory “to get permission from Isis group to let employees past checkpoints,” reports Le Monde.

A “pass stamped with an Isis group stamp and endorsed by [Isis] finance chief in the Aleppo region” confirms Lafarge’s deal with Daesh to allow the free circulation of its goods.

In February 2015, Isis were driven out of the Jalabiya region by Kurdish forces.

Lafarge has declined to address the allegations, stating only that the firm’s highest priority was to protect the safety of its employees in Syria.

However, instead of ending its Syrian investments when the conflict began as most other international firms had done, which would have been the safest option, the firm struck a lucrative business deal with the jihadist terror group to maximise profits from its local cement operations.
Who is buying Isis oil?

According to Zaman al-Wasl, Lafarge regularly purchased fuel from Isis for its own operations, and even supplied cement for Isis to sell in Syria.

In one email trail, Lafarge general manager Bruno Pescheux received a warning from his Syria senior plant manager about repercussions due to the firm’s “illegal purchasing of petroleum products from ‘non-governmental organizations’ in areas outside the control of the Syrian government […] there are high expectations about a government action or a resolution against individuals and companies who purchase illegal petroleum products.”

Pescheux’s response was revealing. Agreeing that this could be a “worrying” issue “in the future” for Lafarge, he suggested the company prepare justifications for its policy, such as:

– at least the HFO [residual fuel oil] we consume is not smuggled abroad and benefits to [sic] Syria construction activity

– it is very minimum quantity compared to what is smuggled to Turkey.

Lafarge is not the only major company implicated in buying Isis oil, though it is perhaps the first case where a deliberate policy of purchasing oil from the jihadist group has been confirmed through the firm’s own internal documents.

Business partnerships of any kind with terror groups like Isis are criminal actions under international law, and subject to stringent US and EU sanctions.
What is Paris thinking?

Adding insult to injury, the Office of the Mayor of Paris has struck a corporate partnership with the very same sponsor of Isis to provide sand for this summer’s Paris-Plages event.

Outraged by the partnership, nearly 40,000 members of SumOfUs, the international corporate watchdog, have signed a petition demanding that Mayor Anne Hidalgo immediately cut Paris’ partnership with Lafarge.

Eoin Dubsky, SumOfUS campaign manager, said:

Terrorists should never be business partners. It is beyond reprehensible for Lafarge to be cutting deals with Isis just for profits’ sake. By enriching the terrorist group’s coffers with payments to continue its operations in Syria, Lafarge is inadvertently supporting Isis worldwide campaign of terror that has left scores killed, displaced and under siege in one of the worst humanitarian nightmares of our time.

This is a scandalous partnership with the City of Paris that should have never happened. By partnering with Lafarge for this summer’s Paris-Plages event, the City of Paris is whitewashing the company’s obscene show of corporate greed that profits off the war and violence created by terrorists. It is high time to make Lafarge accountable for its support of terror, which is why nearly 40,000 SumOfUs members are calling on Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo to cut ties with Lafarge once and for all.

The Canary contacted the Parisian mayor Anne Hidalgo to find out how such an appalling partnership could be struck, but received no response.

Far from being courted by Paris with new contracts, Lafarge executives should be prosecuted in France for sponsoring the terrorist group behind the Paris attacks.

From Saddam to Clinton to post-war Iraq

But Lafarge leads quite a charmed existence.

Among its earliest benefactors was former First Lady and current presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton.

From 1990 to 1992, Clinton served on Lafarge’s Board of Directors. Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.


Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.

In the late 1980s, according to an archived investigative report in the American Spectator, Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme.

The American Spectator report from November 1996 cited sources confirming that Hillary Clinton did legal work for Lafarge in the late 1980s before she became a director. The report also claimed that Lafarge’s US subsidiary:

provided key services for the covert arms export network that supplied Saddam Hussein. To prevent exposure of that secret supply line, and collateral damage to Hillary Clinton – who joined Lafarge board in 1990, just as the arms pipeline was being shut down… the Justice Department was told to bury the investigation… But investigators from other US government agencies who worked on the case say they were ‘waved off’ whenever they got too close to exposing the direct involvement of the intelligence community in the arms export scheme.

Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.

In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.

The company is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm’s up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015. Lafarge is also listed again as a donor to the Clinton Foundation for the first quarter of 2016.


Lafarge is a major beneficiary of disaster capitalism in Iraq, dominating a market where Iraq’s infrastructure remains in dire need of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. The company describes itself as “one of the largest non-oil investors in Iraq.”

The firm is not just an economic juggernaut. Its murky history of intelligence ties, and significant political clout in France and the US – the countries leading the airstrikes against Isis in Syria – raise the question of whether Lafarge believes it can profit from terror without accountability.
And another one: http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/world/hi ... wikileaks/
In a sensational development, the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, has revealed that US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton earned $100k while she was director of a company tasked to arm the rebels in Syria.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Assange claimed that along with the office of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was also the director of the French company Lafarge, which was handling the US’s secret mission in Syria that aimed to topple the government of President Assad.

“Hillary’s hacked emails include info on Hillary arming the rebels in Syria – which ultimately became the Islamic State militant group ,” he went on to say while responding to a query.

He further added: “As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped arm the terrorists in Syria and Libya, she helped overthrow President Assad, and even laughed about the death of former Libyan President Gaddafi”.


On the occasion, he also urged the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) to catch Hillary Clinton for the charges, if they “really want to”.

She archived her emails like “the library of Alexandria, there is proof within those emails that she knowingly armed jihadist including ISIS,” he said.


Earlier, immediately after FBI announced not to file any charges against Hillary Clinton over leaked emails scandal, the Wikileaks head had announced to publish more information about her.

He said that the information could easily be used by the government to indict Clinton, but was skeptical if the FBI would ever actually pursue this course of action.

“The contents of those emails will confirm that Clinton dismissed the reluctance of Pentagon officials to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, while they had also predicted the possible outcome of the war in Libya, that we are witnessing today,” he said.
Wikileaks search for Lafarge in case you'd like to snoop around: https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=laf ... nt#results

tvrec
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#45 Post by tvrec » Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:33 pm

Don't know if you've read this piece yet, Hype, but I think it does well to offer an explanation as to the vehement dislike (hatred) of Clinton as opposed to more traditional, say, white male candidates"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11 ... -ever-seen

tvrec
Posts: 771
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:59 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#46 Post by tvrec » Fri Aug 05, 2016 6:47 pm

This is asinine, Larry.

ISIS didn't arise solely from the topping of the Gaddafi regime; that thread is far longer and more tangled, leading to more than one event and players that far pre-date H. Clinton. Stop the nonsense. It is well known that the US Congress, pre-Clinton, played a role in arming a proto-ISIS organization. John McCain famously spread his photo op shots with early members, exclaiming them freedom fighters.

I think it's rather fair to depict Clinton as a career position, and that kind of description -- at least in my book -- inevitably means a kind of compromised character that can border, if not fall into, the unethical at times. But that criticism is founded more in the nature of US politics than some pig-headed hatred of a woman whose public service is generally well founded and forward leaning.
Larry B. wrote:Here are a few gems.

Clinton celebrates her role in killing #Libya's head of state which led to ISIS takeover: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760225209358114816

Hillary Clinton took cash from, was director of, company that did deals with ISIS: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/760145201008668672
http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/pari ... y-clinton/

(I think the amount was $100,000 that Clinton took)
The City of Paris has struck a corporate partnership with French industrial giant, Lafarge, recently accused of secretly sponsoring the Islamic State (Isis or Daesh) for profit.

Documents obtained by several journalistic investigations reveal that Lafarge has paid taxes to the terror group to operate its cement plant in Syria, and even bought Isis oil for years.

Yet according to the campaign group, SumOfUs, Lafarge is the corporate partner and sand provider to the City of Paris for this summer’s Paris-Plages urban beach event. The project run by Office of the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, will create artificial beaches along the river Seine in the centre and northeast of Paris.

Lafarge also has close ties to Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Apart from being a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself was a director of Lafarge in the early 1990s, and did legal work for the firm in the 1980s. During her connection to Lafarge, the firm was implicated in facilitating a CIA-backed covert arms export network to Saddam Hussein.
Blood money

An investigative report by the French daily Le Monde revealed in June that the corporation, the world’s leader in construction materials, had paid taxes to Isis middlemen, as well as other armed groups in Syria, to protect its cement business operations in the country.

But the Le Monde story only covered a fraction of the revelations. Previous investigations by Zaman al-Wasl, an independent news outlet run by elements of the Syrian opposition, revealed that Lafarge had even regularly bought oil from Isis.

Al-Wasl’s original investigation, which Le Monde appears to have borrowed from considerably, was published in February, and based on internal documents and emails from the company. Al-Wasl reported that the CEO of Lafarge Cement Syria, Frederic Jolibois, had personally instructed his firm to make payments to Isis.
Under fire

France has repeatedly been targeted by Daesh, and Daesh-inspired terrorists, over the last few years. The latest mass atrocity occurred in Nice, where 84 people were killed on Bastille Day. On Tuesday, a priest in Normandy was brutally murdered by Isis terrorists.

Paris itself has been repeatedly attacked by terrorists. On 13 November 2015, Isis coordinated a series of terror strikes in Paris and its northern suburb, Saint-Denis, killing 130 people and injuring 368.

Yet Paris’ new corporate partner, according to Le Monde, sponsored the Isis terror group in Syria in the preceding years to keep up company profits.
Profit over people

Emails discovered by Le Monde reveal that Lafarge – which merged with Swiss cement maker Holcim in 2015 – had made “arrangements […] with the jihadist group to continue production until September 19, 2014.”

Most of these emails seem to have been first obtained by Zaman al-Wasl. Lafarge’s Syria operations ended on that date when Isis took over the firm’s facility in Jalabiya.

Documents show that Lafarge’s Paris headquarters were fully aware of the business deal with Isis. The company even sent a representative into Isis territory “to get permission from Isis group to let employees past checkpoints,” reports Le Monde.

A “pass stamped with an Isis group stamp and endorsed by [Isis] finance chief in the Aleppo region” confirms Lafarge’s deal with Daesh to allow the free circulation of its goods.

In February 2015, Isis were driven out of the Jalabiya region by Kurdish forces.

Lafarge has declined to address the allegations, stating only that the firm’s highest priority was to protect the safety of its employees in Syria.

However, instead of ending its Syrian investments when the conflict began as most other international firms had done, which would have been the safest option, the firm struck a lucrative business deal with the jihadist terror group to maximise profits from its local cement operations.
Who is buying Isis oil?

According to Zaman al-Wasl, Lafarge regularly purchased fuel from Isis for its own operations, and even supplied cement for Isis to sell in Syria.

In one email trail, Lafarge general manager Bruno Pescheux received a warning from his Syria senior plant manager about repercussions due to the firm’s “illegal purchasing of petroleum products from ‘non-governmental organizations’ in areas outside the control of the Syrian government […] there are high expectations about a government action or a resolution against individuals and companies who purchase illegal petroleum products.”

Pescheux’s response was revealing. Agreeing that this could be a “worrying” issue “in the future” for Lafarge, he suggested the company prepare justifications for its policy, such as:

– at least the HFO [residual fuel oil] we consume is not smuggled abroad and benefits to [sic] Syria construction activity

– it is very minimum quantity compared to what is smuggled to Turkey.

Lafarge is not the only major company implicated in buying Isis oil, though it is perhaps the first case where a deliberate policy of purchasing oil from the jihadist group has been confirmed through the firm’s own internal documents.

Business partnerships of any kind with terror groups like Isis are criminal actions under international law, and subject to stringent US and EU sanctions.
What is Paris thinking?

Adding insult to injury, the Office of the Mayor of Paris has struck a corporate partnership with the very same sponsor of Isis to provide sand for this summer’s Paris-Plages event.

Outraged by the partnership, nearly 40,000 members of SumOfUs, the international corporate watchdog, have signed a petition demanding that Mayor Anne Hidalgo immediately cut Paris’ partnership with Lafarge.

Eoin Dubsky, SumOfUS campaign manager, said:

Terrorists should never be business partners. It is beyond reprehensible for Lafarge to be cutting deals with Isis just for profits’ sake. By enriching the terrorist group’s coffers with payments to continue its operations in Syria, Lafarge is inadvertently supporting Isis worldwide campaign of terror that has left scores killed, displaced and under siege in one of the worst humanitarian nightmares of our time.

This is a scandalous partnership with the City of Paris that should have never happened. By partnering with Lafarge for this summer’s Paris-Plages event, the City of Paris is whitewashing the company’s obscene show of corporate greed that profits off the war and violence created by terrorists. It is high time to make Lafarge accountable for its support of terror, which is why nearly 40,000 SumOfUs members are calling on Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo to cut ties with Lafarge once and for all.

The Canary contacted the Parisian mayor Anne Hidalgo to find out how such an appalling partnership could be struck, but received no response.

Far from being courted by Paris with new contracts, Lafarge executives should be prosecuted in France for sponsoring the terrorist group behind the Paris attacks.

From Saddam to Clinton to post-war Iraq

But Lafarge leads quite a charmed existence.

Among its earliest benefactors was former First Lady and current presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton.

From 1990 to 1992, Clinton served on Lafarge’s Board of Directors. Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.


Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.

In the late 1980s, according to an archived investigative report in the American Spectator, Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme.

The American Spectator report from November 1996 cited sources confirming that Hillary Clinton did legal work for Lafarge in the late 1980s before she became a director. The report also claimed that Lafarge’s US subsidiary:

provided key services for the covert arms export network that supplied Saddam Hussein. To prevent exposure of that secret supply line, and collateral damage to Hillary Clinton – who joined Lafarge board in 1990, just as the arms pipeline was being shut down… the Justice Department was told to bury the investigation… But investigators from other US government agencies who worked on the case say they were ‘waved off’ whenever they got too close to exposing the direct involvement of the intelligence community in the arms export scheme.

Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.

In 2013, Lafarge’s Executive Vice President for Operations, Eric Olson, was a ‘featured attendee’ at the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting.

The company is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm’s up to $100,000 donation was listed in its annual donor list for 2015. Lafarge is also listed again as a donor to the Clinton Foundation for the first quarter of 2016.


Lafarge is a major beneficiary of disaster capitalism in Iraq, dominating a market where Iraq’s infrastructure remains in dire need of hundreds of billions of dollars in investment. The company describes itself as “one of the largest non-oil investors in Iraq.”

The firm is not just an economic juggernaut. Its murky history of intelligence ties, and significant political clout in France and the US – the countries leading the airstrikes against Isis in Syria – raise the question of whether Lafarge believes it can profit from terror without accountability.
And another one: http://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/world/hi ... wikileaks/
In a sensational development, the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, has revealed that US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton earned $100k while she was director of a company tasked to arm the rebels in Syria.

In an interview with Democracy Now, Assange claimed that along with the office of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was also the director of the French company Lafarge, which was handling the US’s secret mission in Syria that aimed to topple the government of President Assad.

“Hillary’s hacked emails include info on Hillary arming the rebels in Syria – which ultimately became the Islamic State militant group ,” he went on to say while responding to a query.

He further added: “As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped arm the terrorists in Syria and Libya, she helped overthrow President Assad, and even laughed about the death of former Libyan President Gaddafi”.


On the occasion, he also urged the Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) to catch Hillary Clinton for the charges, if they “really want to”.

She archived her emails like “the library of Alexandria, there is proof within those emails that she knowingly armed jihadist including ISIS,” he said.


Earlier, immediately after FBI announced not to file any charges against Hillary Clinton over leaked emails scandal, the Wikileaks head had announced to publish more information about her.

He said that the information could easily be used by the government to indict Clinton, but was skeptical if the FBI would ever actually pursue this course of action.

“The contents of those emails will confirm that Clinton dismissed the reluctance of Pentagon officials to overthrow Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, while they had also predicted the possible outcome of the war in Libya, that we are witnessing today,” he said.
Wikileaks search for Lafarge in case you'd like to snoop around: https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=laf ... nt#results


User avatar
Sue
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:29 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#48 Post by Sue » Sun Aug 07, 2016 12:13 am

As a woman and a NYer who has lived through these years of Clintons and Trumps and knowing two separate trustworthy people close to me that know some of the Trump family and the Clintons (more on that later), I feel my best bet is try to look at this race solely on experience. Not saying how I will vote because that's just debate bait. But as for pure experience, how can Trump compare to Hillary? All jokes or suspicions aside, she has been on the inside for decades and knows so much more about world politics, the US (and our secrets), the history of how things really went down and how to handle political conflict than Trump. People love to say how Hillary is the criminal, but Trump has plenty of shady dealings. The person I know (very close to me) is from Queens and mainly knew Trump's brother Fred before he died, but has mutual friends still friendly with the Donald part of the family and believe me, he's a NY businessman through and through and that means shady dealings to get to the top. Not that I'm judging. :wiggle:

My friend (whom I trust implicitly and I've known very well for over 30 years since we were teens) who knows the Clintons was in the Secret Service during the entire Clinton administration and worked directly with them both on a daily basis. When I see him in person we frequently get to chatting about those days and I've heard some crazy stories. To address this:
mockbee wrote:I actually think she is most likely a good and decent person. There is no evidence to the contrary.
:lol: I guess I will reserve comment. Let's just say I've heard she's got a temper. :yikes: And sadly, in this world I doubt a woman can get where she is by being good or nice.

My friend lives out west now so I don't see him as often as I would like, and we don't talk detailed stories by text or phone, he's very discreet unless we are in person (and :drink: ). I guess I wouldn't be shocked if they still monitor his communications, especially during an election year with what he knows. He's never divulged top secret info to me just anecdotes. I did text last week asking if he knows Gary J. Byrne, the SS agent who wrote Crisis of Character, the book about the Clintons and if so what he thought. He said (carefully worded) that yes, he served with him and no, he hasn't read the book yet but the author is "very credible". So take that for what you will. :noclue:

Just my $0.02. IMHO we're probably screwed, it's down to which one will do the least harm and that sucks. I just always cannot believe the behavior of "friends" shredding each other online during Presidential election years. It gets so ugly. As if anyone can ever be "right". :banghead:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: Can someone explain what's so objectively bad about Hill

#49 Post by Hype » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:47 am

Sue wrote:As a woman and a NYer who has lived through these years of Clintons and Trumps and knowing two separate trustworthy people close to me that know some of the Trump family and the Clintons (more on that later), I feel my best bet is try to look at this race solely on experience. Not saying how I will vote because that's just debate bait. But as for pure experience, how can Trump compare to Hillary? All jokes or suspicions aside, she has been on the inside for decades and knows so much more about world politics, the US (and our secrets), the history of how things really went down and how to handle political conflict than Trump. People love to say how Hillary is the criminal, but Trump has plenty of shady dealings. The person I know (very close to me) is from Queens and mainly knew Trump's brother Fred before he died, but has mutual friends still friendly with the Donald part of the family and believe me, he's a NY businessman through and through and that means shady dealings to get to the top. Not that I'm judging. :wiggle:

My friend (whom I trust implicitly and I've known very well for over 30 years since we were teens) who knows the Clintons was in the Secret Service during the entire Clinton administration and worked directly with them both on a daily basis. When I see him in person we frequently get to chatting about those days and I've heard some crazy stories. To address this:
mockbee wrote:I actually think she is most likely a good and decent person. There is no evidence to the contrary.
:lol: I guess I will reserve comment. Let's just say I've heard she's got a temper. :yikes: And sadly, in this world I doubt a woman can get where she is by being good or nice.

My friend lives out west now so I don't see him as often as I would like, and we don't talk detailed stories by text or phone, he's very discreet unless we are in person (and :drink: ). I guess I wouldn't be shocked if they still monitor his communications, especially during an election year with what he knows. He's never divulged top secret info to me just anecdotes. I did text last week asking if he knows Gary J. Byrne, the SS agent who wrote Crisis of Character, the book about the Clintons and if so what he thought. He said (carefully worded) that yes, he served with him and no, he hasn't read the book yet but the author is "very credible". So take that for what you will. :noclue:

Just my $0.02. IMHO we're probably screwed, it's down to which one will do the least harm and that sucks. I just always cannot believe the behavior of "friends" shredding each other online during Presidential election years. It gets so ugly. As if anyone can ever be "right". :banghead:
I can't get anything from what you wrote except "I heard Hillary has a temper."

Post Reply