Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Hillary Clinton blames Putin for popularity of right wing leaders Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:




    I have something to add to this. The US supported the extreme nationalist right-sector in Ukraine to to overthrow their Russian friendly government. Here is McCain with one of their leaders.

    Name:  evil.jpg
Views: 53
Size:  9.4 KB

    They support extremists world wide, in Syria of course to overthrow Assad.



    Hillary represents everything wrong with poltiicans in the West she is a prostitute backed by billions of shekels. The big banks, the media owners, they billionaire oligarch's love her. She talks about the evils of nationalism yet she's a hardcore Zionist who is even willing to nuke Iran. Needless to say it's obvious which group is at the top of the pyramid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Kind of ruined it at the end there when you said "she is a prostitute backed by billions of shekels"...

    Being blindly pro-Israel is nothing new for an American leader; I'd be more worried her being backed by billions of Saudi riyals.
    Offline

    20
    She wants to nuke Iran? Isn't that a tad more extreme than Trump's foreign policies?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    She wants to nuke Iran? Isn't that a tad more extreme than Trump's foreign policies?
    She doesn't want to "nuke Iran". She is (reluctantly) supportive of the JCPOA, whereas Trump wants to "renegotiate" it (somehow...).

    Hillary's FP is essentially that of a Republican: unquestionably pro-Israel, heavily funded by Saudi, views Iran as the biggest threat to world peace (saying "the Iranians" were the proudest enemy she had made), willing to use force in the ME (e.g. she was in favour of strikes against Assad when Obama overruled her) etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Governments always blame other governments to hide the shortcoming of theres
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    go back to reddit and 4chan

    there is nothing wrong with Israel
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    She didn't say Putin was responsible for it. She said that there was a link between alt-right and Putinism, and it's true; there is.

    It's not a coincidence that both Peter Hitchens and Alex Jones are both fans of Putin. They both view him as being anti-EU, anti-"globalist", anti-abortion and very much in favour of a kind of birth-rate obsessed, ethnic nationalism. There are also the more obvious links between Paul Manafort (who was running Trump's campaign until recently) and Putin's Ukrainian shill Viktor Yanukovych.

    Trump has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Putin, and there are many similarities between Trump and the post-2004 Putin persona. Clinton's assertions are valid. I don't think there has ever been a US presidential candidate who is so favourable to Russian interests as Trump is, with his anti-NATO, demagogic, nativist, isolationist platform.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    She doesn't want to "nuke Iran". She is (reluctantly) supportive of the JCPOA, whereas Trump wants to "renegotiate" it (somehow...).

    Hillary's FP is essentially that of a Republican: unquestionably pro-Israel, heavily funded by Saudi, views Iran as the biggest threat to world peace (saying "the Iranians" were the proudest enemy she had made), willing to use force in the ME (e.g. she was in favour of strikes against Assad when Obama overruled her) etc.
    Clinton's foreign policy is not that of a republican, it's that of a politician who continues to support the postwar consensus of US foreign policy. That is, that it believes in multilateralism and NATO, that it is willing to use force where it is required, that it supports the State of Israel and that it will work to counter malign Russian influences and infiltrations where necessary.

    As for airstrikes against Assad, that wasn't just her view; it was the view of David Petraeus (Director of Central Intelligence) and Leon Panetta (Secretary of Defense). In fact, the substance of the Clinton/Petraeus/Panetta in late 2011 and early 2012 was that they were beginning to get intelligence indications that Al-Qaeda and Islamist groups were infiltrating the Syrian opposition, that these groups were growing in strength and that it was vital that they acted then and there to support the moderate Syrian opposition.

    At that time there really was no major AQI presence in Syria. There was also the issue of the chemical weapons red line; the President made it clear to Assad that the use of weapons of mass destruction against his own population would be a red line of which the US would not tolerate a crossing. Assad used the weapons, but the US did not act. It was after the deal they struck to get rid of the arsenal that the Islamist groups really started to take off, having attacked the Free Syrian Army as a dupe of the West, that the West had made claims for itself but in reality it would not protect the Syrian people.

    A US airstrike on the Assad government could have shaken it to the point the regime would collapse. If that had occurred the FSA was in the position then to form a transitional government, and we would have avoided another five years of what became the most brutal civil war for decades. History has proved Clinton, Petraeus and Panetta correct.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lawyer3c)
    Kind of ruined it at the end there when you said "she is a prostitute backed by billions of shekels"...

    Being blindly pro-Israel is nothing new for an American leader; I'd be more worried her being backed by billions of Saudi riyals.
    The donations from the Saudis to the Clinton Initiative were in some ways ethically problematic.

    But it's not like the money for that foundation goes into their bank account; it's used to pay for various charitable initiatives like helping babies born with HIV, that sort of thing.

    There aren't really any properly corrupt things you could find that Hillary Clinton has done, and by historical standards she is a remarkably clean candidate. I mean, Lyndon Johnson was pretty much the political organised crime boss of Texas and took a cut of every bribe that was paid to federal officials and judges in the state. A lot of people who investigated corrupt schemes in which Lyndon Johnson and his proxy Bobby Baker were involved in ended up dead. But Lyndon Johnson was actually a pretty good president, once he was in office.

    By the historical standards of all the kings, emperors, presidents and potentates that we've seen, Clinton would be notable by historical and American standards for how little corruption one could associate with her.

    Once she is in office I think she will do what she thinks is the right thing to do. She made a good senator and a good secretary of state; I think she will make a good president too. Certainly she will be a lot better than the madman Donald Trump
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 26, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.