I'm just operating under the opinion that you're arguing in favor of Clinton, however indirectly or unpurposefully, by presenting these 2 listed assertions while providing little to no evidentiary information to back up these claims. It's not a strong argument until you can back them up with facts.

There aren't really many facts no matter where you sit on this debate. You either think Clinton will or will not start a war with Russia over the Middle East. Or, you think Trump will or will not start a war with Russia over the Middle East. Clinton has said some stuff that could cause some issues in the Middle East, but, unless I am mistaken, at this point all we have is the word of a ranking Russian officer saying Clinton will start a world war with Russia.

I can't prove she will start are war, nor can I prove she will avoid one. Likewise with Trump. I just think all the players involved will be smart enough to avoid a world war when the prize is the third world shithole that is Syria.

The only reason I speak more of Clinton than Trump is that I think she is going to win and she is going to President.

Don't even try to hand wave away the information presented in this thread by myself and others as simply being meaningless.

You are very mistaken and had you put forth even the most modest of effort you would know this..

https://www.google.com/search?q=most...time+russia+us

This will hardly happen with HRC and her ties to the current "allies" in the region. Getting millions of dollars from many of the totalitarian islamofascist juntas in the region is proven to go far with her.

The evidence speaks otherwise, apart from the arrogant rhetoric towards Russia that's been a trademark of White House for the past 8 years, there's at least two cases where the current majorly overstepped the line towards Russia.

Being

1) supporting a coup in Ukraine and profiting of it (a country where Russia had their black sea naval base and that was bound not to ever become a part of NATO). This caused reaction.

2) supporting an armed coup in Syria and profiting of it (a country where Russia has vested interests and a military base). This caused reaction.

So I doubt she would intend to do it but when it comes to pushing the buttons there's a proven track record of doing so. In any case it can be expected that US under her rule will be deemed a completely untrustworthy partner from the Russian POV.

I guess we are going to find out. The writing is on the wall. Hillary is likely going to win the White House. If I were someone who really thought she was about to start a war with Russia I would be figuring out how to move to New Zealand.

Here's the thing. And this is why I don't think there will not be a war. Russia can't beat the United States in a conventional war. They simply do not have the military might to do so. This means if they were to start a war with us the only way they could really hope to win is with the use of nuclear weapons and Putin is not stupid. He knows if he launches a nuke, even if it is not directly at the US, he will be opening a Pandora's box that likely ends with everyone dying.

Clinton has spent pretty much every minute of her life since she and Bill left the White House working on being elected POTUS. She will be the first female POTUS. Do you think she is going to risk destroying her legacy by being known as the first female POTUS who also destroyed the world?

There is simply too little to gain and way too much to lose in a war with Russia. In the end, cooler heads will prevail.

Hooboy... anyway back to the wall street speeches.

She sure does love that IMF. And can we really take her seriously on women's rights when she's working so hard to provide political cover and support for so many regimes and outright terrorists that have ZERO respect for Women's rights?

Probably not. Since she seems to think they are just a great profit opportunity

Oh I doubt she would want to do a total war with Russia. Just merely pointing out a proven track record of disastrous foreign policy that, as a matter of fact, involved also Russia. And that will bring more, and more problems. And with such track record of lethal incompetence these problems may have disastrous and unprecedented consequences.

One thing is very much certain - it simply won't get any better with HRC when it comes to foreign relations.

Creating and fueling more mess, flooding Europe with migrants while supporting islamofascist "allies", trying to apply a "hard stance" towards Russia while being strategically inferior and always at least one step behind, funneling money towards the military complex and interfering where the other cronies have something to gain etc.

LMAO where is this Hillary Clinton? Her and her gang of cronies have been heavily involved in political sniping and mudslinging
https://www.google.com/search?q=hill...ks+about+trump

Assad or someone like him is the only option for Syria. The puzzling thing about the West is after so many failed attempts to bring Moderates to power in the ME. They still keep trying.

Which is a waste of time, money and lives.

But.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dT3qFp6uxM...-8ajFhQSA.jpeg

Being fucked by the cost of Obamacare isn't the fault of Obama. It's the fault of the whole US Healthcare Industry. Othe modern countries are able to provide better Universal Healthcare for a lot less per person.

Unless those with money start sharing it out to those without, in whichever way possible. The US will end up with a very Left or Right Wing Government. Voted in by those who see it as the only option.

The days of laying off millions to provide for the few are coming to an end.

I agree. It's weird that his family has ruled the country for decades now, but suddenly the entire middle east has went through a disasterous revolution that seemingly came out of nowhere. Gee, I wonder if someone's personal love for covert action had anything to do with it?

This country is ruled by murderous, money grubbing motherfuckers that give NO FUCKS how many people die because of their hubris. Hillary Clinton is the absolute poster child for everything that is wrong with our nation and especially foreign policy. one thing is clear from these transcripts, and all other available evidence, is that she is a person that does not care about anyone or anything other than her own greedy and self-serving pursuit of power. There is a stark difference in what she says in these and what she says to the american people on many points. She literally will say and do anything.

Unless the West starts to realise that trying to control parts of the World that are uncontrollable. The Arms manufacturers will continue to profit.

Building up China as a source of cheap disposable products has created a new enemy. Which President hasn't been behind that policy?

The ME has been fighting proxy wars for millennium. We need to realise that until the religion unifies like Christianity has. The wars will continue.

Yep, i live in the netherlands.
we pay 90 euro a month for healthcare. + 200 a year 'own risk'
so max amount we pay a year is 1280. and basicly everything is coverd by this. no 100k bills or anything, 1280 a year, and you don't have to worry about anything anymore

Average increase in Healthcare cost is over 4K per family. When I first got personal Healthcare, not through a company, I paid high 200 a month, 2005. Now I pay 600 per month with hardly any coverage and no coverage outside of my immediate area. I.e. if I get in a car accident in NJ I'm not covered if hospital is required.

Thanks obama!

Completely true, some third world countries have better systems.

I have an international healthcare, starts around 130 USD per month. Is about the same as in Holland. Can go everywhere in the world to private hospital or government hospital... except in the USA, than i need to sent an email and get extra cover and pay two times more. Never needed it yet, own risk of 300 USD. But healthcare was so cheap in Brazil that i only paid 50 euro for 4 hour fysio treatments :) Dentist in Colombia and Mexico was also a good price and good quality.

That is if you work for a boss. If you have your own company you pay more.

But if you have a company in Holland you also pay extra, 5,54% over the first € 52.736 income. That is an extra with a maximum of € 2.901 per year. If you have a BV, you pay 6,75%, that is max € 3.533 extra per year.

The problem for some Americans is they live in a bubble of propaganda. Which tells them Obama is to blame for their high healthcare cost.

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files...es_chart03.gif

When the truth shows he's not to blame.

The only way to rule savages is to be savage before they cut off your head. The dream the West peddles that Moderates can rule is stupid, we know they can't. But our leaders keep insisting they can and spend our money trying to prove us wrong. Why?

Profit.

Hillary's speeches to Wall Street were quite revealing in her firm belief of her needing a public face and her real face.
Assange's internet has been cut by a state agency in the last few hours. I wonder why? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Yep, internet was cut. But there's more coming:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks?ref_sr...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Here something I just found:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12923

Re: Superdelegates
From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-12 18:04 Subject: Re: Superdelegates


Both

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message-----

From: Robby Mook <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:00:43 To: Tina Flournoy<[email protected]> Cc: Jennifer Palmieri<[email protected]>; John Podesta<[email protected]>; Huma Abedin<[email protected]> Subject:

Re: Superdelegates

Just so I'm clear--we're looking for a press strategy on this? Or a strategy to retain our people?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:07 PM, tina <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, as I think it's gaining traction >

Can you get a breakdown of the superdelegates?

> > Race/ gender etc -
> And some biographies of some of the superdelegates - are there still > Jackson DNC members?

(Those added to DNC post a 1988 deal with Rev Jackson) >

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > -----------------------------

- > *From: * Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]> >
*Date: *Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:04:41 -0500 >
*To: *Tina Flournoy<[email protected]> > *Cc: *John Podesta<[email protected]>; Robby Mook< > [email protected]>; Huma Abedin<[email protected]> >

*Subject: *Re: Superdelegates > >

We need to figure this out. > > >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:02 PM, tina <[email protected]> wrote: > >>

Do we have a message around this? >>

>> The massive victory by Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire was a pivotal >> moment in the race for the Democratic nomination. >> >> Taken with the close results in Iowa, one thing is increasingly clear: >> This is going to be a long primary season, and every single delegate is >> going to be important. >> >> Which is why many Sanders supporters were shocked to see what the news >> media had to say about the delegate count on Wednesday morning. Even though >> Bernie won New Hampshire by an absolute landslide, the press claimed that >> he and Hillary Clinton were leaving the state with an equal number of >> delegates -- because most of the state's superdelegates are promising to >> vote for Hillary at the convention. >> >> Here's how it works. In addition to the thousands of pledged delegates, >> who are allotted to each campaign based on primary and caucus results, >> there are 712 superdelegates -- made up of Democratic elected officials and >> party insiders -- who get to vote on who the party's nominee should be at >> the convention. >> >> If the race is close, superdelegates could determine who the nominee will >> be regardless of who the majority of voters supported. Pretty undemocratic, >> isn't it? >> >> I think the race for who the Democratic nominee will be should be decided >> by the voters, not by a handful of party elites. If you agree, please sign >> my petition with Democracy for America calling on all Democratic >> superdelegates to pledge right now that they will support the candidate who >> wins the popular vote.< >> Sign Robert Reich&#39;s petition: Bernie or Hillary? Let the voters decide -- not superdelegates | Democracy For America >> > >> >> This isn't the first time that Democrats have raised concerns over the >> superdelegate system. >> >> In 2008, when the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was at >> its closest, some people thought that superdelegates would be able change >> the results of the nomination process. >> >> My friends at Democracy for America took action then as well. In 2008, >> more than 60,000 DFA members signed and delivered a petition to Democratic >> Party leadership asking superdelegates not to overturn the will of the >> voters. And that year, they didn't. Most superdelegates either changed >> their support or waited to choose a side until after Obama won the majority >> of delegates pledged through the primary process. >> >> Unfortunately, the party failed to reform this unfair and undemocratic >> part of the nomination process in the years since President Obama was >> elected. Now, we're facing another potential crisis in the party. >> >> If supporters of either candidate walk away from this process feeling >> cheated because party insiders nullified their votes, it will be impossible >> to put together a winning coalition in November. >> >> Holding on to the White House in 2016 is extremely important. We can't >> afford to let party elites jeopardize that by ignoring the will of the >> voters. Join me and DFA in telling superdelegates to pledge to support the >> popularly-elected winner of the nomination now.< >> Sign Robert Reich&#39;s petition: Bernie or Hillary? Let the voters decide -- not superdelegates | Democracy For America >> > >> >> Thanks for signing this important petition and passing it along to your >> friends. >> >> - Robert >> >> Robert Reich >> Former Secretary of Labor >> >> [http://act.democracyforamerica.com/o...141088.--fppZ] >> DONATE< >> https://secure.actblue.com/contribut...2141088.--fppZ >> > >> Paid for by Democracy for America, >> http://www.democracyforamerica.com/?t=3&akid=7396.2141088.--fppZ< >> http://www.democracyforamerica.com?akid=7396.2141088.--fppZ> and not >> authorized by any candidate. Contributions to Democracy for America are not >> deductible for federal income tax purposes. >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

All these superdelegate emails are bad for dems:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5423
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3609
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12923

I guess the super delegates stuff was pretty clear.

They gave the voters an illusion of choice by nominating two actual candidates. One of which was supposed to never have a chance to win in the first place.

This is just a proof that this is not just a logical conclusion, but it has indeed been a plan from the day one.

If their plan was to attract young / independent /anti-establishment voters that would later keep their team jersey, I'm not sure how that will play out.

In fact I'd be very curious who will these Sanders voters vote for, if they will vote at all.

shouts out to mali

true G

I used to get it in oh hi yo

Down with shillary killton!

But it's now known that there is a batch of John Kerry emails and those should be real juicy. They are stupid to think he's the only one with the files so cutting off his internet accomplished nothing.. I'm pretty sure Assange is reading every email in it's entirety before releasing. I'm also pretty sure he's holding out the best for last. As well as attempting not to release anything that might get someone killed. (as has already happened with Clinton's own emails) So them cutting him off actually hurts them because he can't screen them all before releasing. Now instead of peace mealing they will be released in larger batches at key times (days before debate, before election) is my guess.

What's this all about?

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20280

Hi all, Can we set up a time for a very brief call to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters? Want to make sure we have a robust process in place to make sure that donations that come in from those donors, in any form, get put into the operating account. Let me know when would be a good time for you all. Thanks, Jackie

This is an official PBBC thread.

Welp... that was released 2 months ago. No major news network reported on it.