• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election

sanman said:
Big deal, I saw Richard Dawson kissing people on Family Feud - what a sex fiend!
Click to expand...

That was only until he got married. After that he thought it was disrespectful to his wife so he stopped.
 
PeteEU said:
No the case was thrown out I believe, because the police or prosecutor did something wrong. How could that be her fault that a rapist got off?
Click to expand...


No, I mean the guy went to jail.

At least the one i'm thinking of that everyone brings up thinking she laughed about it.
 
truthatallcost said:
You've already forgotten Scott Foval? So soon your memory fades.

How did Saddam Hussein come to power in Iraq? The USA put him in power, and decided to remove him from power once Saddam got too big for his britches.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not.....quite.

Saddam came to power when President al-Bakr tried and failed to unify Iraq and Syria in 1979. Saddam then forced al-Bakr to step down.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yeah, not.....quite.

Saddam came to power when President al-Bakr tried and failed to unify Iraq and Syria in 1979. Saddam then forced al-Bakr to step down.
Click to expand...

The USA overthrew the Iraqi government in 1963 I believe, installing Saddam's Ba'ath party. Saddam was working with the CIA's approval when he assassinated Iraq's previous leader. He was obviously we'll connected to our government.
 
truthatallcost said:
The USA overthrew the Iraqi government in 1963 I believe, installing Saddam's Ba'ath party. Saddam was working with the CIA's approval when he assassinated Iraq's previous leader. He was obviously we'll connected to our government.
Click to expand...

The USA didn't overthrow the Iraqi government, the Ba'ath party did and then installed themselves.

Obviously he wasn't well connected enough to keep from attacking other American allies.
 
Kobie said:
Political pressure. You think they were going to bus in the blackies from Philly and Chicago to stuff the ballot boxes, like you guys whine about every couple of years?
Click to expand...

Wow...even when it's right there in front of you, you make up something to excuse it. That's so far down the rabbit hole it's disconcerting.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The USA didn't overthrow the Iraqi government, the Ba'ath party did and then installed themselves.

Obviously he wasn't well connected enough to keep from attacking other American allies.
Click to expand...

Ba'ath and Saddam were backed by the US. The guy in power in Iraq during the late 50s was actually courting communist groups, and you know the hysteria over communism in the USA at the time.
The real reason he was whacked was because he wanted to nationalize the Iraqi oil fields, a big no no.
 
Kobie said:
Again, I don't know if you know what "rigging an election" actually means.
Click to expand...

:shock:

The irony of this statement.
 
truthatallcost said:
Ba'ath and Saddam were backed by the US. The guy in power in Iraq during the late 50s was actually courting communist groups, and you know the hysteria over communism in the USA at the time.
The real reason he was whacked was because he wanted to nationalize the Iraqi oil fields, a big no no.
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much hysteria as it was an understandable reaction to overcoming one tolitarian megalomaniac only to have another one step up to take his place. And seeing as the Ba'ath Party was pro Soviet during the Cold War.....
 
Tigerace117 said:
It wasn't so much hysteria as it was an understandable reaction to overcoming one tolitarian megalomaniac only to have another one step up to take his place. And seeing as the Ba'ath Party was pro Soviet during the Cold War.....
Click to expand...

And that little part about oil fields.

$$ talks bull**** walks. Remember that and suddenly government and politics becomes crystal clear.
 
truthatallcost said:
And that little part about oil fields.

$$ talks bull**** walks. Remember that and suddenly government and politics becomes crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Why, exactly, would the US put a pro Soviet regime into power?
 
truthatallcost said:
Oops, looks like Hillary Clinton knows all about rigging elections, and at one time felt that the USA should have rigged elections in Palestine. I believe this gives credence to those who feel that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders, and our own presidential election may be rigged.

Thoughts?
Comments?

2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election | | Observer
Click to expand...

Boy, you guys really don't have anything in your book to convince people to vote FOR Trump, do you? All you have is repeated attacks on the opponent? She kills people, she's "crooked," she's the biggest liar that ever was, etc., etc.? That's it? That's all Trump has going for him?
 
JumpinJack said:
Boy, you guys really don't have anything in your book to convince people to vote FOR Trump, do you? All you have is repeated attacks on the opponent? She kills people, she's "crooked," she's the biggest liar that ever was, etc., etc.? That's it? That's all Trump has going for him?
Click to expand...

1) I am not a big fan of Trump, I cannot understand how any rational person who actually wanted the GOP to get control of the white house voted for him in the primary especially when a good pragmatic choice in Kasich was available and even Jeb was better.

2) that being said, insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Hillary is a career politician whose entire life has been based on political influence and office holding. If you like what you have seen for the last 24 years, then Hillary is a good choice. If you think the current system needs an enema, Trump might well be the solution

3) I am not particularly accepting of the claim that the best experience to be President is having been sucking on the public teat and holding lower offices. In fact that might be one of the big problems we get-people who are politicians thinking like politicians when they get to be president and not seeing any other solutions besides political ones

4) and yes it does matter that its Hillary Trump is running against. If Trump was running against an honorable candidate-like say HHH who wasn't a corrupt scum bag then this argument would go away. But the fact is, I don't want to reward a POS like Hillary clinton, a pig who has wallowed in the mud of corruption and the manure of mendacity for more than a quarter of a century, with the presidency
 
TurtleDude said:
1) I am not a big fan of Trump, I cannot understand how any rational person who actually wanted the GOP to get control of the white house voted for him in the primary especially when a good pragmatic choice in Kasich was available and even Jeb was better.

2) that being said, insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Hillary is a career politician whose entire life has been based on political influence and office holding. If you like what you have seen for the last 24 years, then Hillary is a good choice. If you think the current system needs an enema, Trump might well be the solution

3) I am not particularly accepting of the claim that the best experience to be President is having been sucking on the public teat and holding lower offices. In fact that might be one of the big problems we get-people who are politicians thinking like politicians when they get to be president and not seeing any other solutions besides political ones

4) and yes it does matter that its Hillary Trump is running against. If Trump was running against an honorable candidate-like say HHH who wasn't a corrupt scum bag then this argument would go away. But the fact is, I don't want to reward a POS like Hillary clinton, a pig who has wallowed in the mud of corruption and the manure of mendacity for more than a quarter of a century, with the presidency
Click to expand...

Trump is not fit to be President. Therefore, that only leaves the opposing candidate, who is very qualified and experienced, as well as having the right temperament and is mature.

All politicians are on the teat. Even Trump. He's finagled a way not to pay income taxes. He's stashing money abroad. He's paid politicians to do his bidding. He buys products and services from foreign countries over our country. He hires illegal immigrants. He uses the courts for money and revenge (he's filed over 3,500 lawsuits,and almost daily threatens to file more).

Trump is a dangerous joke. Trump treats people disrespectfully...the people he pretends to want to represent. The people he pretends to care about. Trump cares about one thing: Trump. There is nothing in his past to indicate any concern about the country, the middle class, the working class, or the economy generally. Nothing. He's used the courts to file for bankrtupcy six times to screw his creditors.

Trump is for Trump. Nothing more. He has molested people. He's called people names, for gosh sakes. Is that the kind of person we should have as our President? Can you imagine Reagan or Obama calling an ordinary citizen a fat slob or a pig? He's trailer trash with money.

I don't personally like Clinton, but at least she is qualified, informed, knowledgeable, diplomatic, and she behaves like an adult, at least. She's calm under pressure and thick skinned, unlike the thin skinned Trump who can't control himself at the least criticism. He's dangerous. He's unfit to be President.

I now see that many people in the country are plain stupid, if they can be fooled so easily. They're idiots voting for an idiot.
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack said:
Trump is not fit to be President. Therefore, that only leaves the opposing candidate, who is very qualified and experienced, as well as having the right temperament and is mature.

All politicians are on the teat. Even Trump. He's finagled a way not to pay income taxes. He's stashing money abroad. He's paid politicians to do his bidding. He buys products and services from foreign countries over our country. He hires illegal immigrants. He uses the courts for money and revenge (he's filed over 3,500 lawsuits,and almost daily threatens to file more).

Trump is a dangerous joke. Trump treats people disrespectfully...the people he pretends to want to represent. The people he pretends to care about. Trump cares about one thing: Trump. There is nothing in his past to indicate any concern about the country, the middle class, the working class, or the economy generally. Nothing. He's used the courts to file for bankrtupcy six times to screw his creditors.

Trump is for Trump. Nothing more. He has molested people. He's called people names, for gosh sakes. Is that the kind of person we should have as our President? Can you imagine Reagan or Obama calling an ordinary citizen a fat slob or a pig? He's trailer trash with money.

I don't personally like Clinton, but at least she is qualified, informed, knowledgeable, diplomatic, and she behaves like an adult, at least. She's calm under pressure and thick skinned, unlike the thin skinned Trump who can't control himself at the least criticism. He's dangerous.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is more fit to be president than the lying bitch. She is not qualified and her "qualifications" all came from her marriage to Bill. She's too dishonest, too vindictive and too-two faced to be president. She's proven she is willing to Benedict Arnold the country for her own gain
 
PeteEU said:
LOL come on.. the US government regularly rigs elections around the world.. it is no shocker nor illegal according to US law. Bush Jr did it in Iraq, with Rice and Powell as Sec States.. can I prove it? Of course not, they covered their tracks, but the US has always "influenced" elections in areas they occupied or wanted to. Greece, Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea ..half of South and Central America, all going back to the 2nd world war. It is nothing new, and her admitting it is .. so what.
Click to expand...

Did you actually just equate an accusation of a rigged election in Iraq, that you openly admit you don't have proof for, with someone openly saying that they should have rigged an election? I will not disagree with your general statement that the U.S. meddles in the elections of foreign governments. However, the various elected officials in the U.S. are not a monolithic group. That means there are plenty of elected officials that are not OK with doing such things. Hillary, obviously, isn't one of those elected officials so she is part of the group of people that ya'll normally would be complaining about, and rightly so.

So we have some cognitive dissonance going on here, eh? You have to support Hillary so you'll go against what you'd normally be complaining about. Lol...perfect.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
"Determine" can be used in different ways than you are reading it currently.
Click to expand...

Correct, just not in any way that makes your statement as a helpful excuse for what Hillary said.

Determine | Definition of Determine by Merriam-Webster

Simple Definition of determine
: to officially decide (something) especially because of evidence or facts : to establish (something) exactly or with authority
: to be the cause of or reason for (something)
: to learn or find out (something) by getting information
Click to expand...

She wasn't talking about deciding who won the elections based on the factual evidence of the elections themselves, so it's not the first one. She wasn't talking about learning something about the elections, from information about them, so it's not the third one.

I guess that leaves us with the second definition, doesn't it? There is no contextually different way to take it.
 
Fishking said:
Wow...even when it's right there in front of you, you make up something to excuse it. That's so far down the rabbit hole it's disconcerting.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me, in your own words (not cribbing from some wingnut site), how Hillary's flying monkeys were going to rig an election in Israel. I'll wait.
 
TurtleDude said:
4) and yes it does matter that its Hillary Trump is running against. If Trump was running against an honorable candidate-like say HHH who wasn't a corrupt scum bag then this argument would go away. But the fact is, I don't want to reward a POS like Hillary clinton, a pig who has wallowed in the mud of corruption and the manure of mendacity for more than a quarter of a century, with the presidency
Click to expand...

Hillary is the same pig we've always had. Trump is potentially the worst president we could ever see. I'll take the predictable pig over the unpredictable psychopath.
 
PeteEU said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Italy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_1948#Superpower_influence

Those are the ones the CIA has admitted in doing. There is also accusations for Greece where the CIA and the 1967-74 Military government worked very close together.

Add to that the CIA influenced Coup d'etat from Argentina and Chile to Iran and South Vietnam... and you have a long history of rigging the "free democratic" 3rd world.
Click to expand...

You seem not to have escaped your formative period in the 1940s. ;) The operational phrase was "elections in recent times". Neither of your links shows the contrary. What is true is that there are certain quarters in Europe especially on the left and right fringe that spin the yarn you seem to have been caught in.
What you might want to think about is the interference in EU member states by other members or various arms of the EU system, which are very real today.
 
JumpinJack said:
Boy, you guys really don't have anything in your book to convince people to vote FOR Trump, do you? All you have is repeated attacks on the opponent? She kills people, she's "crooked," she's the biggest liar that ever was, etc., etc.? That's it? That's all Trump has going for him?
Click to expand...

That's all Hillary has. Haven't you seen her ads on TV? Nothing about what she can do for the country. Trump said this. Trump did that. Trump doesn't have the temperment. Trump is a racist and a bigot. Trump is a womanizer. Don't trust Trump with the nuclear codes. You repeated Hillary's exact campaign strategy in repeated attacks on her opponent. Is that all she has going for her?
 
joG said:
You seem not to have escaped your formative period in the 1940s. ;) The operational phrase was "elections in recent times". Neither of your links shows the contrary. What is true is that there are certain quarters in Europe especially on the left and right fringe that spin the yarn you seem to have been caught in.
Click to expand...

Living in denial I see.

What you might want to think about is the interference in EU member states by other members or various arms of the EU system, which are very real today.
Click to expand...

Ahh and we are back to blaming the EU for everything. Unlike US meddling in elections, there is not even remote proof that the EU has done so. Now France has, the UK has.. both in former colonies, many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom