Hillary's opponent, Rudy Giuliani, had to drop out because his personal life had become a soap opera. He was replaced mid-campaign by a little-known congressman from Long Island. Nonetheless, Hillary ran 5 points behind Al Gore in the state of New York in that election.

Hillary might acknowledge the science, but she's not going to do anything to reverse climate change. She's refused to support a carbon tax and she's pro-fracking. I don't know what's worse, the person that recognizes the problem and does nothing or the person that pretends that it doesn't exist.

Add to that the fact that Trump has actually espoused positions to the left of Hillary on everything from healthcare (universal) to trade (anti-TPP/FTAs) to foreign policy (no nation building), and transgender rights, and she ends up looking even worse. Sure, there's at least a 75% chance that Trump is lying or doesn't know what he really believes, but isn't a wild card better than Hillary, who we know does not want single payer, supports TPP, is a hawkish warmonger, and doesn't have the political courage to take a stand on LGBT rights until the fight is already over?

But it is interesting to hear a potential president of the U.S. talk about having the keys to the nuclear codes, the ability to launch U.S. nukes by a U.S. President. That's a pretty astounding thing. In actuality, the launching of nukes is against all international law, there is no way to justify it although some try to like some try to justify torture. It is impossible to use nukes under current international law. Not to mention ethical considerations.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/nuclear-weapons/

Also, the deal with Iran is and always has been part of the master plan for eventual regime change in Iran, Clinton certainly knows that, Trump doubtful.

"Knowing that Iran will never exist within Washington, Wall Street, London, and Brussels' "international order" as an obedient client state, a prescription for regime change in Tehran has long been formulated. Best summarized in the 2009 Brookings Institution paper titled, "The Path to Persia: Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran" (.pdf), this regime change formula includes absolutely everything from economic sanctions and US-backed political upheaval, to the use of terrorism and proxy war to undermine and overthrow Iranian sociopolitical stability and eventually the Iranian state itself.

In the lengthy 220 page document, Brookings policymakers acknowledge the necessity to first neutralize Syria before moving against Iran itself. It also prescribes the delisting of US State Department foreign terrorist organizations in order for the US to then arm and back them in a proxy war against Tehran. Among the terrorist organizations mentioned was Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terrorist organization guilty of years of violence including the kidnapping and murder of American service members and American civilians. MEK has also continued carrying out terrorist attacks against political and civilian targets in Iran up to present day.

It should be noted that these 2009 "suggestions" eventually manifested themselves as the current, ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq where US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed terrorists are waging war against Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, and Russian backed political and military fronts, as well as the eventual delisting of MEK.

It is clear then, that the Brookings paper was more than a collection of mere suggestions. It was an anthology of various operations arrayed against Tehran either ongoing or in the planning stages as of 2009."

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/search/label/iran

It really doesn't matter who is President, the agenda for world hegemony is set, neither can or will change it. Tactics and strategies are the only differences. But Clinton is clearly the more dangerous at this point in time and it can be said that Clinton is one of the preeminent war hawks on the face of the planet. That's who we might have as President.

which is mostly a cheering squad for Madame Warhawk now, and all who endorse her. They need to see a bit of reality about their chosen one, IMO.

On the same side, trying to get the American public to just confess that corporate control is what we wanted all along.

Only Good Cop seems to like punching the suspect lefties more.

veterans with his fund raising (yeah, me neither)? Well Hills has "shared" her PAC $$$ with down ticket candidates since 208... unless you read this article from The Intercept - https://theintercept.com/2016/06/10/hillary-clinton-used-leadership-pac-...

What FEC records show is that Hill PAC’s single largest payment went to Clinton’s campaign, which was about $25 million in debt, including $13 million Clinton lent it herself, when Clinton dropped out in June. While Hill PAC couldn’t legally donate more than $5,000 to Clinton’s campaign account, it was allowed to pay for goods or services from the campaign.

Hill PAC paid $822,492 to the Clinton campaign to rent its list of supporters and their contact information. That alone was nearly twice the amount Hill PAC contributed to down-ballot candidates.

The campaign told the Wall Street Journal in 2009 that Hill PAC paid to use the list for the November election. But filings show Hill PAC didn’t actually pay for the list until January 19, 2009.

Two days after Hill PAC’s payment to her cash-strapped campaign, Clinton was confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

Hill PAC did not contribute to any candidates after that, and dissolved in July.

“The evidence does suggest Hill PAC was used primarily as a slush fund to subsidize Clinton’s presidential campaign, using money raised outside of the limits that apply to the campaign itself, rather than as a fund to support other candidates,” said Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance expert at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan group that supports campaign finance reform.

Sounds remarkably TRump-ish...

When we say that Hillary and Trump are polar opposites on any issue, are we basing that on more than Presidential primary campaign rhetoric, which tends more toward the left and right, respectively, than even the candidate intends to govern? As a preliminary matter, that she supports Obamacare, which I oppose, is not, in and of itself, a selling point for me. She opposes Medicare for all, which I support. So, the issue for me is health care, not specifically Obamacare, a derivative of Billarycare.

From Trump, we have a record only as a business person and a 2016 primary candidate. We have not seen him anywhere near government, except, by his own account, as a donor who expects a return on his political donations.

On the other hand, Hillary was an influential First Lady of Arkansas for some number of years, an influential First Lady of the U.S. for 8 years, a U.S. Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State, one of the most powerful Cabinet positions, for 4 years and a 2008 and 2016 Presidential primary candidate. As we have seen in two Presidential primaries, especially this one, she is also very influential with the DNC and with Democratic politicians in Washington D.C. and in most or all states.

With all that power and influence going for her, what did Hillary actually accomplish, or even attempt, in terms of health care and global warming? She was a DLC founder and WalMart board member. She was for Billarycare, a dense version of the Heritage Foundation plan that even Democrats of that day under their Party head and her husband, would not touch. As a Senator during the Bush administration, did she write any health care or pro-environment bills or amendments? If so, was she able to get them passed?

Given Hillary's record on honesty, trustworthiness and ability to advocate successfully for legislation, how much should I really care if her 2016 primary rhetoric is the only evidence that she is the opposite of Trump on health care and global warming? Obviously, I am not advocating voting for Trump, but I am also not advocating being more sanguine about a Hillary Presidency. That these seem to be our only two viable choices for POTUS in a population of about 350 million speaks volumes about the damage the Clinton-From partnership has done to the Democratic Party and therefore to the nation.

What kind of punishment do we think might happen from T-rump, that could be truly "unilateral" once he's President?