Biggest spoilers in literary history

No, that's a 'shop. Here's the real one.

>Hillary Clinton
>Communist

Just uuuuuuugh.
Not even trying to pin her on you, but Clinton is a neolib hack who supported the Iraq War, and the patriot act. She took money from wall street to carry out their agenda, just like Obama. She took glee into turning Libya into a shithole. She always votes the way the news network polls indicate she should. In one sense she's the ideal "representative" in the sense that she has no real opinions of her own and just chameleons over to whatever is most popular.

Anyone left of the Democratic Party despises Hillary Clinton just like anyone to the right of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton is a textbook imperialist with her foreign policy. She's a textbook globalist neoliberal with her fiscal policy. She believes in outsourcing, automation, and empowering the private sector while weakening governments outside the key area of "national security" which has become a euphemism for unilateral invasion of resource-rich nations.

Anyone with a lick of political sense dislikes her regardless of leaning. The people who like her most are the people who've not looked at politics for more than two seconds, and only see the surface-level qualities of the shitshow.

I would never have voted for her, not even to stop Trump, but now I'm surprised that Trump's foreign policy is exactly like hers would have been, only without any subtlety or holding back. Same aggression towards Iran, Same unilateral military action in Syria. Same aggression of tensions with Kim Jong Un. Same aggression of tensions with Putin (this one is the most different for obvious reasons) but add a dose of bombast and self-pride that Hillary would have kept to herself, save the occasional public address. I'd rather Bernie or some Obnoxious celebrity like Kanye win the primaries next time over that dynastic hag.

If the other post wasn't enough to explain to you that Socialists and Communists despise Hillary Clinton just as much as your average gun nut, go to any leftist subreddit (yes, you heard me) and search "What happened"

Clinton wanted a no fly zone in Syria (not just against the Syrian air force but against the Russians), Trump bombed a bit of desert and uses the Kurds to landgrab in the east. Or the people that are responsible for syria/Iraq, he doesn't come up with that stuff himself. The "moderate opposition" got completely dropped in January except for the few pet rebels in al tanf. His middle east policy seems a lot softer than what Clinton wanted, with the exception of Iran.

North Korea isn't really comparable. Non Interventionism has its limits, North Korea acquiring capable RD 250 engines and promptly launching an ICBM with it and testing what appears to have been a miniaturized boosted fission bomb forces the hand of the US. The nuclearization of the Korean peninsula would be a devastating blow to US power projection in the region. If anything Trumps administration is doing less than many request in this scenario.

Another leftist take on why, Hillary Clinton sucks:

"But there’s the rub. The Democrats are, plainly, co-conspirators in the destruction of American life, “history’s second-most enthusiastic capitalist party” — the willing executioners for free-market zealots, warmongers, and Wall Street. A career engaged in such politics is a morally undesirable career, no matter your gender. Especially so when you are the type of politician Hillary Clinton was born to be: an ignorant hawk with no conception of how her feckless adventurism might destroy entire societies; a greedlord, in love with the accumulation of wealth; and, most vividly, a lying hack who couldn’t sound sincere with the Sword of Damocles hanging over her.
She cannibalized Sanders’s platform when it suited her, with the shamelessness of a starving vulture, then discarded it again. She had no ideas, and ran a campaign suggesting as much. I don’t think anybody really deserves Trump — but Hillary Clinton deserved to lose."
...
"The result is, they lost the race for the most powerful office on Earth to a version of Count Dracula that hates reading. If you lose to Donald Trump — serial sex predator and gold-plated bankruptcy pest Donald Trump — after he runs the campaign equivalent of eating paste, you are the biggest loser in the history of loserdom."

>His middle east policy seems a lot softer than what Clinton wanted, with the exception of Iran.

Maybe. All I know is incidence of drone strikes has increased under Trump from what they were under Obama (aka drone Kang) and he even approved of ones Obama disapproved of and thought were too risky. Trump's first military act as president was approving a raid that resulted in the death of an 8 year old girl, and American citizen, no less, along with other civilian casualties unrelated to the targeted extremists.

There's also the fact that he's making huge weapons deals with Saudi Arabia (100 billion was the very first one, the sum total of deals made over the entire obama administration, in the first year), meanwhile accepting gifts from them in private, and is assisting in the Saudi genocide of the Yemeni. Yemen... a nation that is on Trump's travel ban (along with six others we have destabilized) while the right-wing Wahabist theocratic monarchy Saudi Arabia is not banned. Saudi Arabia, who had a disproportionate hand in 9/11 is not on the travel ban, while impoverished nations rich in natural resources are... why? So industrial interests can move in during the power vacuum. So arms deals can continue for years. So private sector mercenary groups can continue to gain power while government militaries weaken and buckle under the weight of unsustainable wars.

Trump is locking in refugees with extremists. And when that happens, the refugees become the slaves of the extremists, and breed more extremists. This will be used as a pretext for future invasions. Islamist extremism is partly ideology, but it's mostly geopolitical aggravation created by Western foreign policy. We destabilize nations through trade policy and intelligence agencies in order to set the stage for increased incidence of extremism, followed by unilateral invasion on the basis of so-called human rights and stopping extremism. We set up the pins, then knock them down. US foreign policy is bowling. Keep in mind these were all nations where right-wing Islamist militias were funded during the cold war in order to prevent the spread of SECULAR LEFTISM vis-a-vis the USSR hegemony.

I don't claim to know what Hillary Clinton would have done, but I reckon it would resemble what Trump's doing, only slower, and quieter.

>assdevastated commies trying to distance themselves from their former golden child now that she fell apart in the last mile
KEK

Please put effort into your funposting.

oh, I think you come in men enough for both of us ;^)

I figured you weren't willing to have a real discussion.

Look, I get it. Commies can be cringy. Especially American University leftcoms with their fat, pampered, dyed-hair consumerist "communists," who are commies in name only and understand no political theory whatsoever outside of disgust with republicans, and youtube rhetoric about privilege and "punching down."

But I'm actually trying to share with you my take on someone who supported the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and only came out in favor of gay marriage after the polls did.

That morality isn't the Maxine of US foreign policy is obvious. Saudi Arabia (and other gulf countries that barely have a better track record in not being theocratic shitholes that spit on human rights) not being on the travel ban is a result of the US or superpowers in general not being able to saw on their own powerblock, at least not for long.

Trump commanding more risky raids and drone strikes, granted. I don't see the weapon deals as much of a problem though. Yemens desperate state won't be changed by that, KSA has enough military equipment as it is. The current state of the conflict, including the cholera epidemic, is a result mainly of the gulf coalitions ineptitude to wage assymetric war and using starvation and area bombing tactics instead. The Syrians achieved the same with 50 year old soviet airframes.

Anyways, because of Clinton's track record I'm convinced that her foreign policy would have been far worse. Obama was a breaking element, it was her and McCain that orchestrated the clusterfuck that was/is Libya and wanted to do the same to Syria in 2013.

Don't worry user. I at least appreciated your post. I agree that Hillary was an awful candidate, in part for all the reasons you mentioned.

I recall Trump at the time supporting what happened in Libya (and even supporting Hillary over Barack Obama, hence his rampant birtherism).When he cooled his jets and changed position on Libya, it was only once he was running against Hillary.

I trust him to be consistent about as much as I trust her to be consistent.

No idea how consistent he is, didn't remember any political statements from him before he ran for president

was funny once

got me

>clinton
>communist
This is the state of modern America.

>Iran
Trump needs the "right-wing" Jews onside to somewhat hold off the "left-wing" Jews. Sunni allahu akbars, KSA, is there for $$$. Long story short: the US kisses Israel backside, the oil money keeps coming, and the Persians get the short end of the stick.

The only way Trump could settle this Middle-East mess that is fair to all, and not have the US become a further heterogeneous mess in the process, is if he actually went full Hitler. Not just how the opposition likes to claim he already is.

>foreword by Assange
clever

>If you lose to Donald Trump — serial sex predator and gold-plated bankruptcy pest Donald Trump — after he runs the campaign equivalent of eating paste, you are the biggest loser in the history of loserdom."
HRC is so unlikable that if the true nightmare scenario became a reality, and Adolf Hitler were to come back from the dead, and somehow became qualified to run for POTUS, she still would have found a way to lose to that.

I'm sure if Jesus Christ himself had came down to earth to set up his free, open kingdom of god, Hillary would still be reaching out to donors so she could run against him

I think Trump is an embarrassment and stain on American history, but I wasn't exactly surprised or totally dismayed when Hillary lost. She is a career politician who would do far better on the world stage than Trump, but she is thoroughly unlikable and would resort to appeasing special interests groups even more than Trump to garner some sort of support as the term went on. At least Trump's pandering doesn't cost very much money or negatively change the country's demographics; Hillary's would.

It's going to be funny and disturbing when students dissect the election, review the debates etc. in 50 years. What a joke and example of retard populism on both sides.

Even though Hillary is crying her way to the bank with this book, I'm glad as fuck she lost and most people can see through her facade.

I think the reason that I'm not as afraid of the bullshit stirred daily in the white house is that everything trump has done, and intends to do, can be undone almost entirely by the next president. What HRC would have done on the world stage would have changed policy and gone against the public's interests in many ways, but she would have done so behind closed doors while putting on the face of 'leader of the free world' and only speaking up to come out in sympathy for something or other.

Anything that the current administration is even considering doing, behind closed doors even, becomes public debate. I believe that this simmering period will have a positive outcome when it comes to the change it has had on political involvement on all levels. The idea that a scandal-free press secretary had suddenly become ubiquitous speaks volumes as to how much more scrutiny is placed on the government. A scrutiny which, I hope, outlives this period of celebrity politicians.

>jared kushner
LOOK AT THAT FUCKING SPECIMEN

I'm a bit curios to hear her explanation to why she lost. Anybody read the book?

sexism and the fbi guy