It is politics only and who has the money; qualifications do not enter the equation!!
 

The articla is quite interesting. There are some who may well know all this, or surmize it, but most of us not in the detail provided here (if you can only handle a couple of sentences forget it...the article is long):

The stealthy, Eric Schmidt-backed startup that’s working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House - Quartz

No matter how much money mister google has, he can't make her into anything more than she is; and unqualified, unethical, untrustworthy, dodge and weave, flip flopping, LIAR!
It also demonstrates having billions doesn't make a person any smarter!

I wonder how many millions/billions will go into keeping Hilary OUT of jail.

I think you got to be good liar, cheat, friend of Lobbists also.

This thread is not about the republicans

Very perceptive, it's about the Democrats.

You're right, this line of thought is about Hilary. But, if you want to inject others into the conversation, such as Reid (liar), Pelosi (brain dead liar), and Obama (serial liar), you are wanting to revive a dead horse. :0000000000luvmyhors

Or the two biggest liars: Weasel Bush and Dickey Cheney. Their lies got us into the Mideast fix, cost trilions of dollars, and countless lives.

Both are war criminals and should be in prison.

The "lefts" short memory: Your current so called candidate voted for us to go ito that "Mideast fix" as you call it. :ho:

The money people behind people like Hillary Clinton certainly don't live in a vacuum in fact its clear they are investing in a product, one that they have thoroughly investigated before laying money down. so they know more about such a person and know it well ahead of anyone else. These financial backers are all about power and money and clearly morality never gets in their way

Personal Best Regards:

What they don't have certainly cannot be an impediment!

Exactly!

Another example of you not knowing your @@@ from a hole in the ground. Better start doing some research because you definitely can't seem to keep up with the adults.

And by the way, both Clintons backed Bush, as well as Kerry, Obama and Biden. 29 Democrat senators voted for it. And it was Colin Powell's intelligence report to congress that got them to vote for the use of force in Iraq. You know, the same Powell that endorsed Obama for both elections?

And something else you probably didn't know, Sadaam violated the no fly zone and that in itself warranted military action.

I bet you had no problem with Sadaam using WMD's on hundreds of thousands of civilians. Evidence of which was uncovered by mass graves dug up in Iraq in 2003. But, since you don't listen to or read any news, you only have liberal talking points to go by. Pretty pathetic.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127149]

And something else you probably didn't know, Sadaam violated the no fly zone and that in itself warranted military action.

----------

And that was certainly cause to have 4500 Americans die in direct combat and tens of thousands more maimed for life.

There was no threat to America.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127197]There would be no point in establishing a "No Fly Zone" if a President is unwilling to back it up with military action if necessary, now would there?

How many lives will the empty threat of Obama's "Red Line" in Syria, (which Putin obviously views as a yellow streak down Obama's back) cost?

Perhaps since they are not Americans, it doesn't matter to you.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127206]Actually, it exceeds 100,000 right now, and when you think of those children who died by gassing, it sort of gets to you.

I have to come to terms I suppose with two things....

First, as you point out, our country does not care about anyone dying except americans, and each year that goes by we find that the only deaths that matter are those of political importance, whether by color of skin or mode of death.

And secondly, no matter what happens over any period of time in the middle east (and MUCH will happen there) it will be forever the fault of George Bush.

Those two things are now the mantra.

I think since I know number 2 is simply political, what bothers me is the first one in that we now have placed our internal politics out front of caring about human lives anywhere but in this country and then only under certain conditions.

I think this is relative....from yesterdays Wall St Journal.

It is a piece searching for the Obama doctrine on foreign affairs and how hard it is to really find one.

For all of you, and there are many, who refuse to read anything unless it contains a criticism of George Bush, this has a few.

"It is clear that the president’s strategy is failing disastrously. Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four, according to data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold, based on the University of Maryland’s Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism database. Nearly all this violence is concentrated in a swath of territory stretching from North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And there is every reason to expect the violence to escalate as the Sunni powers of the region seek to prevent Iran from establishing itself as the post-American hegemon.

Today the U.S. faces three strategic challenges: the maelstrom in the Muslim world, the machinations of a weak but ruthless Russia, and the ambition of a still-growing China. The president’s responses to all three look woefully inadequate.

Those who know the Obama White House’s inner workings wonder why this president, who came into office with next to no experience of foreign policy, has made so little effort to hire strategic expertise. In fairness, Denis McDonough (now White House chief of staff) has some real knowledge of Latin America. While at Oxford, National Security Adviser Susan Rice wrote a doctoral dissertation on Zimbabwe. And Samantha Power, ambassador to the U.N., has published two substantial books (one of which—“A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”—she will need to update when she returns to academic life)."


To this last point, over the years, many posters have pointed out the Presidents lack of ever asking for advice and when he does never the correct people. He seems to feel he has the answers and this applies not just in the foreign affairs arena.

The piece ends like this and gives you pause when you think of the candidates running for office....

"Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,” Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.” The next president may have cause to regret that Barack Obama didn’t heed those words. In making up his strategy as he has gone along, this president has sown the wind. His successor will reap the whirlwind. He or she had better bring some serious intellectual capital to the White House."

The Real Obama Doctrine - WSJ

[QUOTE=Guest;1127197]Was Vietnam a threat to America? Didn't we lose about 60,000 Americans there? Do you blame Kennedy or Johnson for Vietnam?

Why you brought Bush into the discussion is anyone's guess. Although, the liberal mantra hasn't changed in a while, has it?

[QUOTE=Guest;1127330]Because of the limitations of the talking points issued. States if you don't know the answer or we have not given you what to say use the old standdby, Bush did it .......whether it makes sense or not does not matter. Just derail the discussion.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127330]Do I blame Kennedy and Johnson for Vietnam? You bet I do.

58,000 killed for no reason whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Guest;1127729]I'd be careful saying that in front of those of us that served there. Easy to say that anonymously though.

Liberals don't understand why America fought socialism and communism. It's part of the liberal ideology and seems wrong to fight it. Maybe that is why liberals are frequently thought of as the ENEMY by patriotic Americans.

I had more respect for the enemy fighting us than for the liberals back home protesting or running to Canada. At least the enemy had the courage to fight for their country.

Yes, the Vietnamese were fighting for their country. It was their war - the US had no business in a civil war that would have no impact on our country.

The 58,000 killed died for nothing. The US is now a trading partner with the Communist Vietnam.

Can you enlighten us on what was gained by having 58,000 Americans die in the Vietnam War?

Why don't you ask the democrat politicians that ran the war from D.C.? We could have easily won the war in short time and with a fraction of lives lost. But, nice deflection from the thread to Bush's fault to money spent, lives lost, etc. Now, get back on track or leave.

No, I am certainly not going to leave.

I do not care if the war was run from DC or wherever and do not care if it was Democrat politicians or not.

You stupidly say that we easily could have won the war. Won what? Installed another puppet government and have to keep 30,000 troops there for 50 years?

You "stupidly" forget that it worked in WWII for Japan and Germany. We gave them better countries and built their economies. We also did it for half of Korea with positive results. Look at N.Korea and how bankrupt and starving they are. Regardless of you liberal "screw them" selfish ideology, we have helped in the world.

D.C. politics messed up Vietnam, not the military. And if you don't think that the military trains to fight war, then there's something wrong with you. It's called the military and not the Peace Corps. But, generals should be directing the fight, not a bunch of inexperienced civilians.

But, when you have a so-called leader "leading from behind" that tells America that more important than fighting for right and national security, "My Definition of Leadership Would Be Leading on Climate Change" quote from Obama. What a joke! What a pathetic wannabee dictator. And COWARD.

Vietnam won the war! They are now a tourist destination for Americans as well as trading partners with the USA. They don't need American troops on their soil for the next 50 years.

As I said, I do not care which political party got us in Vietnam - it was wrong to do so. It was an internal civil war and the USA had no business being there. If you think different, tell us why and what was gained by having over 58,000 soldiers killed. Thank you.

Obviously you don't know your history. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have been in WW1 or WWII. But, I expect nothing more from cowardly liberals that think only from the perspective of how much money the gov is spending elsewhere when they could be spending it on you.

It is you that knows little history. I asked for your reasoning as to why the US forces fought in an internal civil war and what was gained by the loss of 58,000 American lives. I hear crickets from your direction.

In WWII, the US was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor and war was declared the following day. Nothing civil war about that.

Now, provide your reasoning about Vietnam.

Go away. You are like a little kid (probably are one) that baits and dares his peers. I'm not going to get sucked into your little traps so that you can get your little jollies. I made my statement and you cowardly diverted to the age old liberal tactic of "you hate women because you don't want them to have free birth control." You hate children because you don't want tax money to pay for free lunches" "You hate blacks because you want photo ID to vote." "You hate gays because you don't want them to get married."

You are so typical and liberal. So, go away. Go find someone else to play with.

And yes, I do believe in war if it is for a legitimate cause. If you really/really need answers, use your Google. If you need instruction on how to use Google, blame your teacher.

Well, you proved it to all the readers that you are just a blowhard who knows nothing about history. You could not give a single reason for the US to be in Vietnam.

58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam for no reason. America was in no danger from Vietnam.

4,500 Americans killed in Iraq for no reason. America was in no danger from Iraq.

Says the coward that wouldn't even defend his family, let alone his country.

If you don't know why we were in Vietnam then you wouldn't agree to the reason I would give you anyway. After all, your idea is to win a debate, even if it means asking stupid questions not related to the thread. Yes, I do know why we were in Vietnam. I also know why we have lost millions of soldiers in wars throughout history. 50,000 were lost in one battle in the civil war. But, what would you know or understand? You believe in abortion but not war. Don't worry, cowards are protected in this country.

I give up. Why did Presidents JFK and Johnson, two Democrats, sent our troops to war in Vietnam?

Johnson did it for the money. There is some interesting history regarding Johnson investments during that time period.

To stop the spread of communism. The French moved out of Vietnam and left it vulnerable to the communist North.

Unfortunately, it was all in vain.

Vietnam won the war, the USA lost.

Vietnam is a very popular tourist destination for Americans now and Vietnam is a trading partner with the USA.

Once again, no answer. If you can tell us what was gained by the USA that was worth over 58,000 lives, tell us.

IF you were in Vietnam, you obviously were a mindless drone since you seem to have no idea of what you were doing it for.

What threat did the North Vietnamese pose to America? Were there Red Hordes ready to cross the Platte River and take over Nebraska and Iowa?

Please Mr. Drone, tell us why the USA should have been involved in Vietnam and why was it worth the lives of those killed.

This thread is over run with examples of how progressives decide to change the conversation to avoid answering the issue at hand. the issue at hand is Obama's foreign policy or lack thereof.

Why do progressives always default to Bush bashing? We are in to the 7th year of Obama leading from behind and that where this country remains behind by any measure

Personal Best Regards:

Obama is the gold standard for not taking ownership of anything not supporting his agenda.

In the 7 years in office has anybody ever heard him take ownership of a thorny issue?
It is Bush or congress' fault.....standard fall back on most.
He also is a master at using the same two for excuses to take executive action.

Even in corporate America he would have not survived as a black executive where the incompetence would far outweigh the race.
In politics and the permissive days of our lives and not offending anyone he is still in office ONLY BECAUSE HE IS BLACK!!!

Well, Mr. Mindless Drone -

Still no answer from you with the reason that the USA was involved in Vietnam?