DescentBB

Neocons Endorse Hillary as the US Party of Empire Is Finally Revealed

Exclusive: Prominent GOP Neoconservative to Fundraise for Hillary Clinton. A prominent neoconservative intellectual and early promoter of the Iraq War is headlining an official campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton next month, Foreign Policy has learned. -FP

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analys ... -revealed/

just going to where the power is going to be. Pure politics:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

callmeslick wrote:just going to where the power is going to be.

Slick has become a neocon supporter?

Is it news that Clinton's foreign policy is aligned with neoconservatives?

I'm certainly not a NeoCon supporter. So our choices come down to either a Dem NeoCon turncoat or an unstable, short tempered psychopath. What a choice.

Many in the State Department have been calling for war against Assad. It's insane.

Are they looking for world war?

Nightshade wrote:Many in the State Department have been calling for war against Assad. It's insane.

No one is looking for world war, but the region that comprises Syria is of massive strategic importance in the Middle East. That's why everyone has their hand in the pot either directly or by proxy. I suspect that region will be deliberately destabilized for the next decade or two until one of the players has enough of an advantage for a sudden and swift push to secure the territory. Syria will not be claimed by a large military campaign until the very last second when a victor is all but decided and everyone else backs down. Rather, it will be many, many small manoeuvres in a tight space over years (which is how it's been going since before the civil war). This will also be a war of economic attrition. The winner will one who can support a prolonged conflict.


My own speculation: The United States is supporting both Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey (naturally as a NATO ally) in an effort to diminish Russian support. With Russia out of the way it becomes much easier to pay off the others with concessions.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:just going to where the power is going to be.

Slick has become a neocon supporter?

hardly. I'm just commenting on realpolitik above. It's getting more obvious by the day that Hillary is going to win. This camp, if they wish to have any clout, feel the need to put out public support. So what is new about this? Have you ever paid attention to how power and influence peddlers work in DC prior to this week? I don't think I'd ever describe Clinton as aligned with neoconservatism, as none of those folks ever seem to play a role in her actual actions or advisory teams. Still, she is probably to the hawkish side of Trump, if we average the usual massive range of opinions and bloviation that Trump brings to any issue.

callmeslick wrote:

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:just going to where the power is going to be.

Slick has become a neocon supporter?

hardly. I'm just commenting on realpolitik above. It's getting more obvious by the day that Hillary is going to win. This camp, if they wish to have any clout, feel the need to put out public support. So what is new about this? Have you ever paid attention to how power and influence peddlers work in DC prior to this week? I don't think I'd ever describe Clinton as aligned with neoconservatism, as none of those folks ever seem to play a role in her actual actions or advisory teams. Still, she is probably to the hawkish side of Trump, if we average the usual massive range of opinions and bloviation that Trump brings to any issue.

As much of a buffoon and con artist that I see Trump as being- he will NOT start a world war.

Hillary is very capable of doing so for her masters however.

Would it be intentional?

No...at least I hope someone would never be evil enough to want to- but would she have the arrogance and hubris to continue the tone deaf and hawkishly dangerous ways (Libya, Syria, Ukraine) of Obama? Probably more so.

She was PART of his foreign policy team as Secretary of State. The same State Department of "F-the EU" Victoria Nuland...the same State Department that engineered a dangerous 'revolution' in Ukraine that cost the lives of thousands of Ukrainians and provoked Russia's annexation of Crimea.

The SAME State Department that is now calling for open war on Assad...with US FORCES.

Nightshade wrote:...but would she have the arrogance and hubris to continue the tone deaf and hawkishly dangerous ways of Obama?

Wait, isn't Obama supposed to be weak? So now he's hawkish? Can you make up your mind?

callmeslick wrote:just going to where the power is going to be. Pure politics:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

Cherry picking your polls again slick?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

RealClear's gap has been growing for weeks.

today's latest.....with a trend chart. That's a 14 percent swing in a month.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... b7Kz&pfr=1

neocons, environmental activists, and everyone across the issue-focused segment of the political power structure read these polls. And, can see the handwriting on the wall. Remember, Woody.....I warned you about this trend and seeing it in other private polls a few weeks back. Real Clear may seem comforting to you, but one has to realize that RealClear is a rolling average, and thus a trailing indicator.

Yeah slick, except when I link some lone poll you are quick to use RCP.

woodchip wrote:Yeah slick, except when I link some lone poll you are quick to use RCP.

How come your boy isn't beating Clinton in even one of the eleven polls? It's almost July. He's running out of time to make something happen.

I suggest vision you look at the Carter Reagan vote and see who was ahead 2 weeks before the election. Polls are only a snapshot of the now.

woodchip wrote:I suggest vision you look at the Carter Reagan vote and see who was ahead 2 weeks before the election. Polls are only a snapshot of the now.

Ah yes, the Regan/Gallup poll myth. This is not surprising coming from someone who doesn't believe in climate change and has no understanding of statistics. Why look at the polls from two weeks before? How about the six months before where both candidates traded places nearly every week? How about the fact that not one single time has Trump passed Mrs Clinton in a Gallup poll? At least with Regan/Carter the race was close. It will take a miracle for Trump to sweep ahead.

Maybe we should wait until the campaign starts in earnest and we have had a few debates, and can at least narrow down to “likely voters” before we call this thing.

seriously, Spidey? You figure the Orange Buffoon is going to fare well in a debate on the actual issues?

callmeslick wrote:seriously, Spidey? You figure the Orange Buffoon is going to fare well in a debate on the actual issues?

I figure he'll ★■◆● slap Hillary Clinton and she'll have to take another long potty break.

woodchip wrote:I figure he'll ★■◆● slap Hillary Clinton...

Classy.

....and another misogynistic comment by woodhead. Keep it up, you weapons grade bollock sack.

I notice vision, you didn't make the same reply to slicks "orange buffoon". I understand how you might not want to irritate him.

Hey, I stopped insulting baboons, and haven't yet fully embraced my favorite from the list of Scottish responses: Bollock-Chinned Jizzsplatter.

"Weapons-grade plum" is pretty fantastic too.

that whole list is hilarious.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:I figure he'll ★■◆● slap Hillary Clinton...

Classy.

Yup, just as classy as someone who lies about the Benghazi attack and uses her position to steer donations to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.