Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

[Kabluey]

I'm amazed anyone was still using cassettes in 2006

 

[Benvolio]

Kaluey, i hope you realize that i have had you on ignore for two months or so.

 

[Kabluey]

Kaluey, i hope you realize that i have had you on ignore for two months or so.

And yet you respond.
Pure genius, oh omnipotent one.

 

[DantheManFL]

Someone Was Actually Arrested For In-Person Voter Fraud. She’s A Trump Supporter.

Police in Des Moines, Iowa, said Friday that they had arrested Terri Lynn Rote, 55, on suspicion of voting twice in the general election.

Rote, a registered Republican, allegedly submitted ballots at two different early-voting locations in Polk County, Iowa, according to local media reports. She has been charged with first-degree election misconduct, a felony.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/voter-fraud-donald-trump-iowa_us_5813e775e4b0390e69d075a4

 

[Kulindahr]

Here is Hillary arguing that we should rig the Palestinian elections. http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-au...clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/
If we should rig theirs, why not hers.

Ah, so she stands in the good old imperial tradition we inherited from the British: rig other people's elections, and of that doesn't work overthrow actual democratic governments.

You know, if we hadn't overthrown Mossadiq in Iran back in like '53, there never would have been an Ayatollah government, because there never would have been a Shah.

Will we never learn?

 

[Kabluey]

Ah, so she stands in the good old imperial tradition we inherited from the British: rig other people's elections, and of that doesn't work overthrow actual democratic governments.

You know, if we hadn't overthrown Mossadiq in Iran back in like '53, there never would have been an Ayatollah government, because there never would have been a Shah.

Will we never learn?

If it happened at all.

The tape and its authenticity don't appear to have been verified by the majors, it's just being reported on conservative blogs and Russia Today (Russia's state news agency for international audiences).
Maybe the Daily Fail would run with it?

 

[evanrick]

Hillarys vote to invade Iraq had no lasting damage?

 

[opinterph]

Hillarys vote to invade Iraq had no lasting damage?

Was it her vote that pushed the authorization over the required majority for passage?

 

[rareboy]

Hillarys vote to invade Iraq had no lasting damage?

 

[Kabluey]

Hillarys vote to invade Iraq had no lasting damage?

I had no idea she was a one woman army.
Get real.

 

[evanrick]

Was it her vote that pushed the authorization over the required majority for passage?

every vote counts. that is the nature of democracy.

 

[kallipolis]

every vote counts. that is the nature of democracy.

The question remains: did HRCs vote trigger the war in Iraq?

.... Or, were the votes for war with Iraq so overwhelming, that had HRC not voted in favour, the outcome would not have been changed.

Here's the relevant "intelligence" :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please address this question.

 

[Benvolio]

The question remains: did HRCs vote trigger the war in Iraq?

.... Or, were the votes for war with Iraq so overwhelming, that had HRC not voted in favour, the outcome would not have been changed.

Here's the relevant "intelligence" :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please address this question.

By your reasoning, each of the Senators voting for this or any other bill could argue no responsibility, as it would have carried anyway. More is involved than the vote. The Senators talk and debate among themselves formally and informally convincing and reinforcing eath others conclusion. Clinton and other leading democrats were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

[Kulindahr]

The question remains: did HRCs vote trigger the war in Iraq?

.... Or, were the votes for war with Iraq so overwhelming, that had HRC not voted in favour, the outcome would not have been changed.

Here's the relevant "intelligence" :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Please address this question.

That question is a dodge. The real question is whether anyone should have voted for war with Iraq, given that there was no evidence they had been involved in any action against us, and that the Bush idea of pre-emptive war is imperial beyond measure.

Hillary voted for imperialism, pure and simple.

 

[kallipolis]

^^The assertion posted here by evanrick is that as a result of HRCs vote, she was directly responsible for the United States invasion of Iraq.

One needs to separate fiction, from reality...that the Iraq Resolution was a bi-partisan policy that received overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.

The rest is a pedantic use of empty space, filled with meaningless words.

 

[kallipolis]

That question is a dodge. The real question is whether anyone should have voted for war with Iraq, given that there was no evidence they had been involved in any action against us, and that the Bush idea of pre-emptive war is imperial beyond measure.

Hillary voted for imperialism, pure and simple.

The matter under discussion here was clearly defined when HRC voted along with a majority from both sides of aisle to support the Iraq Resolution.

 

[evanrick]

That question is a dodge. The real question is whether anyone should have voted for war with Iraq, given that there was no evidence they had been involved in any action against us, and that the Bush idea of pre-emptive war is imperial beyond measure.

Hillary voted for imperialism, pure and simple.

this is what Clinton supporters fail to understand. they continually spin Hillary's past decisions as 'immaterial'.

Hillary supports pro-war regime change, a militaristic stance that demands America be involved in perpetual war.

The reason for this is the military industrial complex relies on 'emergencies' to drum up support for more and more funding from the federal budget.

the pentagon is fighting with entitlement spending, the military contractors know the more that is spent on social programs, the less that can be spent on their militaristic cash cow that is the business of war.

the warmongers and the politicians who support them in this country are not fighting for America's security, they are playing tug of war with grandma's social security check, higher education spending and healthcare programs like medicare. they are fighting to line their own pockets.

its about dollars, and its Hillary's Achilles heel.

Clinton supporters must ask themselves if they feel comfortable sacrificing important social programs in order to prop up Clinton's desire for ever escalating conflicts, fear mongering over Russia, and the blowback caused in the form of terror groups speading across the middle east and europe.

 

[Benvolio]

The matter under discussion here was clearly defined when HRC voted along with a majority from both sides of aisle to support the Iraq Resolution.

Agreed. With the benefit of hindsight, most of us we agree that it was a mistake. It is typical of democrats to advocate it, support it, vote for it an then pretend it was all the fault of Republicans.

 

[rareboy]

^^The assertion posted here by evanrick is that as a result of HRCs vote, she was directly responsible for the United States invasion of Iraq.

One needs to separate fiction, from reality...that the Iraq Resolution was a bi-partisan policy that received overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle.

The rest is a pedantic use of empty space, filled with meaningless words.

Pretty much precisely this.

 

[opinterph]

That question is a dodge. The real question is whether anyone should have voted for war with Iraq, given that there was no evidence they had been involved in any action against us, and that the Bush idea of pre-emptive war is imperial beyond measure.

Hillary voted for imperialism, pure and simple.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

US House of Representatives: 297 Yeas, 133 Nays

US Senate: 77 Yeas, 23 Nays​

My vote is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. – Hillary Clinton


5 Myths (And One Big Truth) About Hillary’s 2002 Iraq War Vote (Huffington Post; February 2016)