Can we finally forget about Hillary Clinton?

Hillary remains the diversionary target of choice. Leaving aside the long-established tradition of attacking her over the last 30years and more, she's a powerful skilful woman, something unthinkable to her Trumpian detractors.

 

No, losing an election is not an automatic forgiveness of misconduct or criminality, particularly since it also relates to her as secretary of state and the question of who really was working with the Russians - and why?

20% of our uranium - the most strategic of all substances - and in this same time frame the Clintons put $500,000 in Russian money into their own bank account and over $100 million into the Clinton foundation that they exclusively control and some is in foreign foundations that are not audited.

We also learned the FBI knew about this all and how many Russian agents were do everything possible to connect to the Clinton State Department and Clinton herself - and kept silence.

All that did NOT become an irrelevancy the moment Clinton lost her election. Setting aside questions of legality, this was a MASSIVE failure of law enforcement, our government, and displayed minimally a massive gap in security by which thru 3rd parties - with or without deliberate intention - our national security can be enormously compromised. That is not something to just shrug our shoulders saying "doesn't matter because she lost" for many reasons since she was not the only person involved and minimally some manner of preventing any such thing from happening again must be undertaken. To do so, first we must learn exactly what happened, how and why.

 

She's a washed up old has been that needs to be prosecuted for her crimes against the US to enrich herself. Her political career is over. Anything she says or does at this point is viewed as laughable.

 

That would be his decision to make.

 

What happened to 4th?

I agree with most of what you wrote here, but on your contention that most wars have been fought over cultural differences, I have to say that is also shallow. Wars are fought for all kinds of reasons: access to material goods (land, water, trees, women, gold, oil), cultural differences (religion, economics, race, ethnicity), vengeance (the Trojan War, Hutu genocide, second invasion of Iraq), and in many cases, simply for conquest (Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, the Roman empire). And to say that war doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile is to completely ignore World War II. Sometimes war accomplishes a lot.

 

I'm somewhat familiar with Smith although I've only read secondhand guides to his ideas, I've yet to read his texts themselves. SMith and Ricardo had tremendous influence on Marx, to the point where most of the time when right wingers try to argue against the Marxian labor theory of value, they accidentally argue against the Ricardian formulation of the labor theory of value instead.

But you also have to understand that at the time that the great anticapitalist theorists were writing, the idea that the word capitalism meant free trade didn't exist. At that time, the word was an obscure term of the social sciences with a much more specific meaning than you're using- the private ownership of industrial manufacturing equipment.

I'm not surprised that so many right-wingers can be fairly well educated and hold so many misconceptions about socialists: We're reading people arguing in a time where language was different enough that points have been lost.

WIth that in mind: Anthropologists and archaeologists have found that, historically, trade has been something you do with your enemies. Within groups, gifting was dominant for a long time.

If people only go to war because it's worthwhile, then by definition peace is the default state. The reverse would be people only ceasing to go to war if it was worthwhile

marx never said that. marxists have, however, stated that culture and economics shape one another in a circular fashion.

I don't believe in leaders. I'm a libertarian socialist, as critical of Stalinists as American libertarians are of warhawk authoritarian right wingers like Dick Cheney.

Essentially, I believe that the revolution should happen by communities getting together and building a new world immediately by setting up new social programs and voting in local elections for the purpose of nurturing the community institutions they're building. My end-game is a world where all traditional states have collapsed and been replaced by decentralized networks of direct democracies on small scales that settle matters that impact the larger world by forming confederacies that deal purely with logistics and defense

 

Since when did traditionalism become fascism? I find it funny that for years dems would scream that they were not communists, and now they wear T-shirts with a sickle and hammer. As for why Hillary should not just disappear, I think there are a tremendous amount of people who want to see that the democrats are not above the law. We shouldn't try to prove criminal behavior because she lost? How does that make sense? I think the "little guy" is tired of getting a raw deal and wants to see Obama, Hillary, Rice, Podesta, Wasserman-shultz, Holder, Bill, and the AG who met with Bill on the plane actually have consequences for their behavior. The media murders any republicans who screw up, even if it just saying something stupid. I'm tired of seeing the other side doing whatever the heck they want with no repercussions. So no, she shouldn't just go away, she should go to jail.

 

if even 1/10 of what we think about clinton is true, then her and bill make up the most incredible political story in modern human history.

so no, we're not going to forget about them.

 

Skillful at what? Even her staunchest supporters couldn't list an accomplishment. She did nothing as
a Senator and just made a huge mess of things as SoS except pump up the coffers of the ClintoN Crime Family Foundation with pay to play. Scandal has followed her, her entire career.
She did get fired from Watergate for her typical Hillary shenanigans, and so it began - one scandal after another. Skillful my ass.

 

The dems aren't communists. The resurgence in socialism in the US is happening in the Dem's leftward opposition. We want to hijack the democratic party as much as we can.

I loathe Clinton, but she really is above the law is so is every other politician. They won't face justice unless everything collapses and a lynch mob forms.

America won't get better. That hope is gone. I'm just hoping it disappears with minimal bloodshed. America was a noble experiment, but it failed and the longer it keeps going the more likely the collapse is going to take us all with it.

 

But that's exactly what the founders of this country were aiming for.you see. The central government was never intended to weild the sort of power it does today. Most political power was meant to be weilded at the state and local level.

 

And you know this how?

 

The founding fathers started going back on their promises earlier than most people realize

 

Such as?

 

I keep forgetting that I have shoes in my closet older than most of the people on the left today.

 

LOL Agreed. T-shirts too.

 

A lot of poorer revolutionaries were pretty outraged that democracy was pretty much just for landowners

 

A lot of "poorer revolutionaries"? You mean college-aged Millennials flipping burgers for a job and living at home?

 

Um . . . Sarah Palin?

 

At the very least Hillary and Podesta and probably Debbie Wasserman Schultz need to go to trial -- along with handfuls of other corrupt to the core former Obama officials (such as Lois Learner) -- whether or not a single one of them is found guilty and gets prison time, just to show to the nation that the laws actually DO apply to everyone; even to obviously corrupt to the core upper level, wealthy, and well connected Democrats.

 

You misunderstand

Please note most does not equal all. And I did not say that wars accomplish nothing just that peace happens when countries believe that fighting is no longer productive. Wasn't it Clausewitz who said "War is diplomacy by other means"? please note the reverse is also true in certain ways.

 

That sir is simply self serving nonsense. She isn't particularly powerful especially so at this point in time, and her only skills are pulling the wool over the eyes of the more gullible people in the Democratic base, and building alliances with power hungry money grubbing dirt bags like herself.

 

Agreed here. War is bad for business. Only those involved in arms make a buck, most others lose business.

Also note it was the Chickenhawks who sought to invade Iraq in 2003, not our military leaders for reasons made clear at the time.

 

The last was a misunderstanding of the situation. Had 9/11 not happened Saddam would still be either ruling or more likely dead of old age. This not to say by the way that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 but rather that we had 50k troops in Kuwait and Saudi vs, his 90 k and the stategic situation meant we would need those 50k troops in Afghanistan. And the only way to do that without living the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia en prise, as it were, was to take down Saddam. In certain ways Saddam paid the price for the constant reduction in numbers of US ground forces since the end of the Cold war.

 

Incorrect.