Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon Warmonger, In a Capitol Hill Sticker


I'm willing to see how much war she actually mongers. Maybe less than you think.
It's really awful how we endlessly bait disappointed Bernie supporters and disaffected Stein supporters here on Slog. Just this constant dumb-beat.
I have no idea who Ansel Herz is, but the idea that Hillary Clinton is a conservative warmonger, is laughable, as was the idea during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama was going to be anything but a fairly centrist politician.
Wait neo-con or neo-liberal? How is a confused denizen of a late capitalist rape culture supposed to make sense of all this?
I completely agree with everything you said in the third paragraph and (I hate that I'm about to state this, because I can't stand this platform) your tweet.

In the meantime, there's no reason to not work for a more progressive (and ideally, electable) candidate to challenge her in 2020.
Noted. Still going to vote for her.
If your husband got blowjobs from the intern you might be angry too.
And if lefties didn't slack off like dumb assholes for four decades allowing the Birchers to take over she wouldn't even be the lesser of two evils candidate.

I'd say "See you in the midterms." But we both know that I won't.
Don't care. Totally don't care. Still Never Trump.
Remember that time she said something that wasn't 100% true because it was the diplomatic thing to do?

The metaphor is a bit confused. She's riding a bomb of... feminism? Explain? In Kubrick's film, it was miscommunication and blind loyalty that put George C. Scott's character in that situation. What exactly are they trying to say here?

Also, Twitter posts are not references. What the hell?
@10. Yes, I seem to recall something about that.

@10: And quick: Who said this? "Nancy Reagan had a good heart, and she will be dearly missed.”

Scroll down to the end of the post I linked to in previous comment and click the link.

You mean Slim Pickens' character.
Also, I think the iconography is meant to be more indicative of WW-II era bomber nose art, which in turn would make this sort of a double-dig by objectifying Clinton in the same manner as the pin-up imagery upon which it's based.
I don't get the point of this post. Clinton voted for war, Sanders is in bed with the NRA, Stein is in bed with the anti-vaxxers. All of these positions contribute to shamefully large numbers of needless deaths. They're all politicians. That means they're going to be disappointingly expedient from time to time and lie about what they believe in order to maximize their popularity. To expect anything different is to expect generosity from a bank or open-minded tolerance from a fundamentalist. If your candidate is without sin, then by all means, throw the first stone. But your candidate isn't. So save your rocks for targets that truly deserve them.
Is Jill Stein anti-vaccine?

I am very glad that you made it clear that, when referencing millions of people within a geographic area, women are there.

I would not have thought so otherwise.

Do you have Sue Bird posters on your walls?
Damn it, looks like Ansel just cost Clinton the endorsements of Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. It's going to be Ansel's fault if Trump wins.


Have you ever heard of "dog whistle" political statements?

"... her somewhat equivocal statements surrounding that issue allow for a fair bit of leeway and interpretation — many others who proclaim to "support vaccinations" in concept effectively undercut their positions by raising objections to the "vaccination process" or the "vaccination industry."

What Stein very noticeably does not say is that she fully supports manditory vaccination, even with medical exception.
We can also ask how much preventable war would break out in the world if the US elected a president who had no foreign policy positions at all.

That's only fair, isn't it?
Argh wrong story.
"Hay guise, I saw a sticker on a trash bin, so I'm gonna write about it and repost a tweet I'm proud of, because it's been a while since I aimlessly talked shit about someone."
(paraphrased, natch)

@18: Stein isn't an anti-vaxxer, kinda the way Trump isn't a white supremacist.
They're not, but they pander HARD to the ones who are.
@2 Dan Savage is a terrible person. Low -- but still present -- on my list of reasons not to vote Clinton is to do my fractional part to piss him off.
I don't want to see Trump elected.

I live in a 'rust belt' state, and part of Trump's strategy is to swing traditionally blue states like mine by appealing to white working class voters.
Basically, I have to vote for Hillary; because I live in a battleground state.

Most people don't live in battleground states.

I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Canadian politics - I'm guessing a few of you are considering that Washington (like Michigan) is a border state - if you aren't you should be.
'Strategic voting' helped the Canadians elect Trudeau and send the conservatives packing while firming up the liberal base.

I suggest that everyone that's upset with our current choices read this:

Learn as much as you can about strategic voting. I think it's one of the best chances we have to fix our own broken system.
Have we judged any former Secretaries of State of candidates for president based on how 'feminist' their foreign policy was? Have implied that male leaders aren't 'true feminists' because of their foreign policy? Of course not. We don't expect them to be feminists at all. But sure, let's keep implying the (future) first woman president isn't a 'true feminist'. The double standards are truly next level.
@27: It's not even just double standards. It's that the best is the enemy of the good, and a lot of people on the left seem all too happy to repeat the mistakes of the Tea Party.
@2 Pretty ballsy of Dan to show his face in the comment section of this article about Clinton's neocon warmongering tendencies, considering that his most regrettable political blunder was his full-throated support for Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq. He must think we've forgotten about it by now and it's safe to cheerlead for war again.

Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with all the same assholes who got us into the Iraq mess. We will be disastrously invading another middle eastern country before her first term is over, I guarantee it.
Oh my God,the liberals on Capitol Hill are speaking.Was it worth reading? NAH

$100 says you're wrong, that the US will not invade a country* in the Middle East while Hillary Clinton is president.

Take the bet?


* "invade" shall have the commonly understood meaning of "send ground troops into a country with the intention of defeating its military and taking direct control of its government"
@31, You sick morbid fuck, offering a friendly gentleman's wager over mass killing. Fuck you, you disgust me.
@2, you're a Dittohead for the DNC. But it's probably best for you to ignore Ansel's points, since distraction is Clinton's best hope.
@32, don't you understand that those lives don't count? It's not as if they're Americans or Europeans.
If there was a single "fact" in this piece that supports the narrative, I couldn't find it. Randomly selecting a few people who might vote for or endorse Clinton does not equal some mystical ability to predict the future. And suggesting that she has "surrounded" herself with them is simply a lie. But I get why you're motivated to construct a false narrative.

The other point that cracks me up is when Clinton is compared to Stein. You can't compare a peanut gallery politician, who never has and never will have to make a complicated decision to won who has spent her life actually working. Thanks, but no thanks. I have a Peanut Gallery Allergy. Supporting Stein is like fantasy football; you do know you're not actually playing, right?
damn typos. Hey Stranger...edit function? It's 2016.
Bush-era torturers and war criminals stand with Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't you?
Come on people, Clinton isn't a neoliberal warmonger for Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Glass Steagall, NAFTA, end of welfare, etc (like, you know, HER actual record) because Stein showed that she is a dogwhisling antivaxxer for pointing out regulatory capture at the FDA.

Clinton sycophants are grotesque.
Have we judged any former Secretaries of State of candidates for president based on how 'feminist' their foreign policy was?

Being a feminist doesn't mean caring only for the advancement of American women, while sending other women back to the stone age (or keeping them there). So, not only should you have also judged former Secretaries of State based on the consequences of their policies for women but especially so if they made being a feminist a central part of why you should vote for them.
@13/14 Why, bless your heart. Everybody knows that meaningless platitudes immediately following the death of a famous character is exactly the same as outright lying about their record.

For instance, when you die, we'll ignore all your idiotic rambling about shitty politicians and your assholeish support for the Iraq War, and instead remember the good things you've done. But, we won't make up lies like saying "Dan Savage did everything in his power to prevent corrupt warmongering politicians from exerting their power."
@27 Quick. How many former Secretaries of State have run for the Democratic presidency in the past 30 years?
@39: "her actual record"
No results found for "her actual record". Did you mean "what delusional wingnuts on both sides have decided her record secretly is"?

Also, anon1256, nice of you to come back and show your face again. Care to spin a few more exaggerations, misrepresentations, and outright lies? (HEYO.)

@42: It's a little outside your artificially imposed scope, but Edmund Muskie ran for President in 1972.
Speaking of, anon1256, I'm still waiting for you to show me where in Turner et al. 2016 they "showed methane emissions have been rising for 15 years". That's your claim in your own words, and you've repeatedly insisted that you've been telling the truth. So, put up or shut up (again).
@43 So, the answer is no. You have to go back 44 years, back when feminists were still considered rather radical, and hadn't hit the mainstream. Besides, McGovern hit him particularly hard on his conservative policies and won the primary (and lost the election).
The obscenely rich stand with #HillaryClinton. Shouldn't you?

Want a family photo with Hillary? Only $10,000!

@12 0H SHIT, you're absolutely correct. It's been a while.
I'll take that, bet, double or nothing. Hillary Clintons already heavily pushed for the Kosovo and Libya wars and voted for the Iraq War. I'll donate half of my winnings to a charity that helps refugees. No we have not forgotten Dan Savages stirring cry to bear the white mans burden and spread the empire. I think Hillary being the former first lady handpicked by the establishment, really ruins the whole historic moment for feminism thing. Plus it's such an obvious ruling class script, from now on the Democrats are gonna run a first... and all of PC liberaldom will clap and cheer and all of them will basically govern like Reagan/Nixon and they're will always be a racist bogeyman we can blame all of our problems on like Trump, and nothing will ever change. As long as we are all willing to play along with this sham of a democracy.
@43- 44 Check out the shill for business as usual throwing mud to see what will stick. Of course, no answer on point per usual because Clinton's record is that of a neoliberal warmonger. That is beyond dispute unless you are somewhere around the vicinity of Nixon modernized. Focusing on details rather than substance to better obfuscate is your memo and throwing out the baby with bath water is the point of it all, of course.
@44 perfect example of your constant obfuscating. I said 15 years when the title says "past decade" that turns out to be a 8-years worth of data and analysis. Does it invalidate the fact that this data conflict with your denial that methane emissions have increased since the beginning of fracking? No.

Drop the lab coat, stop posturing and stop making a fool of yourself with your paranoid ad-hominem .
@49: "Clinton's record is that of a neoliberal warmonger. That is beyond dispute unless you are somewhere around the vicinity of Nixon modernized."
In other words, if I dare disagree with you and dispute your claims, I'm as bad as Nixon. Because you said so, and you have appointed yourself the sole arbiter of truth, and disagreeing with you is tantamount to heresy. (And as long as we're on the topic, Nixon wasn't actually all that bad a guy as you might expect based solely on Watergate.)

@50: "I said 15 years when the title says "past decade" that turns out to be a 8-years worth of data and analysis."
Okay, so you admit that you lied, and that your claims weren't even consistent with the claim made in the TITLE OF THE PAPER. And your point is...what exactly? That because the paper provides slight-to-moderate support to one of your claims, it's okay that you lied about its contents?
Yeah, you could have used the paper to support your argument. (I've got my issues with them just drawing a trendline through the results of three studies with different methodologies and measuring schemes, and I think you've been dishonest in your glossing over the authors' refusal to attribute the purported increase to any particular cause, but you could have used it to support your case.) But that's not what you did. Rather than present the evidence you found in support of your argument, you decided to lie. And when you've got the facts on your side (as you apparently believe you do), the very worst thing you can do is to lie, because it erodes your credibility. When you lie about what a paper says, people stop believing you; instead of accepting your statements about works you cite, people start going through those works (as I did) because you have a proven record of lying in that regard.
And really, it speaks to a reckless disregard for the truth when you lie needlessly. You're more concerned with making your argument than with making your argument based on reality. And that brings us back to that old principle of BASIC FACTUAL ACCURACY.
@51 sure, everyone lies to YOU. Talked to your shrink yet?
@51 "Nixon wasn't actually all that bad a guy"

the proof is in the pudding
(Apologies if I get the comment numbers wrong, they're not displaying on the thread and I'm only able to read them by my mystic scrying ability.)

@52: No, anon1256, it's really just YOU who lie to me. Most people on this here Polynesian basket-weaving forum can be trusted to accurately report the contents and conclusions of papers they cite. (With the obvious exception of collectivism_sucks.) But when you make a claim and reference a published source, a lot of the time there's a serious discrepancy between what it says and what you say it says.
Nice gaslighting by the way. I call you out on your falsehoods and you tell me that I'm crazy and it's all in my head. How very progressive and feminist of you, right? (I am crazy, but I'm perfectly capable of reading and comprehending a journal article, and it's really beside the point.)

@53: Nice quote out of context. But hey, it's absolutely true that Nixon was a better President than one might expect solely from reading about Watergate. Nixon wrote the EPA into being with a stroke of his pen. Nixon improved relations with China and the USSR, initiating a thaw in the cold war, and signed a treaty limiting nuclear arms. He forced the South to desegregate its schools, and he brought JFK's dream of a moon landing to fruition. Hell, his administration went after the Trumps for racial discrimination.
Yeah, Richard Nixon did a lot of bad stuff, and I'd say he was a bad guy, on the balance of things. But there was some good in him too, far more than you'd know just by looking at how he left office. I'm able to understand this because, unlike you, I understand that the world is a complicated place and that very few people are unremittingly good or irredeemably evil.
(Also, there's no such saying as "the proof is in the pudding". It's "the proof of the pudding is in the eating", and it refers to the fact that the value of something is best determined by putting it to its intended use. You are now marginally less ignorant, anon1256.)

It's articles like Dan's writing on the Iraq war that remind us of moments when those who identify themselves as being on the political left have been willing to overlook right wing policy and compromise their values for the sake of some hypothetical reality.

With the Iraq war it was "toppling a dictator" and "American security" in the face of terrorism. With the nomination of Hillary (and hopefully her election), it was defeating Trump. Those claiming the goal of ending war and diminishing military spending have compromised their values in the name of electing a woman and defeating Trump, electing a woman whose inclination toward military solutions may be greater than their own.