Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Why Hillary would lose in 2016
Hillary Clinton isn't going to win the election in 2016.
Why?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hil … -1&sk=
Because she's already WON the election this day and hour!
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/ … 01fbee.jpg
Well let's see,
shyster
wifey
Senator
Secretary of State
that's about it. What does your research show I missed?
of course Hillary scores very high when she isn't on TV campaigning. The record shows she can blow a Presidential nomination.
![]PW[ Forever](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/42357.jpg)
You're forgetting one thing, the People that would vote for her lol, remember, they're Americans. 
so are zombies.
you still take the headshot
He summarized it because he was treatng you as non-ignorant.
He was wrong, allow me to help you
Do you guys have anyone you think would beat her? I think 'President Clinton' rolls off the tongue quite nicely! (pun intended!) 
Benedict Arnold would beat her, he was a traitor and he died almost 200 years ago.
All of this hype... the nation is getting sick of liberals like Key defending the undefendable, Obamacare is going to make everyone sick of Democrats and the only way she can win is if we run someone like Chris Christie for President...
I can think of a few who beat her. Scott Brown, Cruz, Palin (yes she can), and even Paul if he gets his act together and swings harder right.
Ryan and Rubio shot themselves in the ass over immigration, now all they do is poop over themselves. Self inflicted idiocy.
Lol your* first thought was a guy dead for over 200 years? Yep, Hillary's won already.
Lol, no... I am comparing two of our worst villians and the dead one wins! Lol
Benedict Arnold and Chris Christie? 
No but seriously, I think it's going to be very interesting leading up to it.
Bill Clinton would defeat Hillary
he fits with the liberal Republican party these days, they should nominate him
the son of a bitch would run too
I can think of a few who beat her. Scott Brown, Cruz, Palin (yes she can), and even Paul if he gets his act together and swings harder right
lol the wacko brigade. You're doomed
Hey your nation finally kicked the environazis out, we can too!
All of this hype... the nation is getting sick of liberals like Key defending the undefendable, Obamacare is going to make everyone sick of Democrats and the only way she can win is if we run someone like Chris Christie for President...
...Your argueing to a guy that firmly is happy and proud to be labeled as a liberal.
Chris Christie? Mr. donut muncher? Yah he's able to work both sides of the fence, and shake hands, but the man has no charisma. He'd probably get the New York, New Jersey vote. I think he needs to lose 150 pounds...to many steak dinners, 1/2 pound hamburgers with extra large shakes on his diet. He looks like the guy that ate the Michelin Man.
I suppose the only person in the universe that could possibly beat Hillary Clinton, would have to be the hypno-toad.
But it's a longshot.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12 … +-+Text%29
I think I will outline the severe waste which did not go to guards while Hillary was Sec. State.
Oh this will be fun!
![[TI] Primo](https://imperialconflict.com/forum/img/avatars/711.jpg)
this thread is coming from the person that predicted obama stood no chance whatsoever to be elected, and then 4 years later predicted no sitting president would have ever lost by such a gigantic margin in a run for 2nd term.
your political predictions kind of lost value flint
also, what happened to jeb bush?
That cocaine snooting loser? What about Jeb Bush?
As for the URL posted by Einstein....Foxnews?...I think the URL name tells the entire story of falsehood as is. And...Kerry is in charge now, not Hillary on that front....so how does this relate to Hillary? The picture was taken back in 2008. The decision for the new artwork was in October during the shutdown...so.....?
You assume the artwork was already finished, when they were stating it would probably be done by 2017, and the decision to allow the go ahead was back in October under Kerry's tenure in the state department.
But if this is correct, I would say $1m is a waste of money. $1m would have been put to better use shoring up the american debt.
it is correct. Now for the next piece of evidence.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
In this example there was a push to buy the most expensive of Electric Vehicles in mass market production while reducing security at a very important location.
Do not worry, there is plenty more. I am just barely touching the surface.
This is not to argue that having more guards, extending the SST presence, or authorizing the continued use of the DC-3 plane would have prevented Ambassador Stevens’ death, which marked the first assassination of a U.S. ambassador since the 1970s.
Again focusing on one man being killed. Since the early 1950's, we've lost hundreds of soldiers, civilian contractors, government aides, during armed attacks on diplomatic posts. I don't think 3 extra guards, as stated in that story, would have stopped the attacks, or would have stopped ANY loss of life. If someone is the compound when a IED is thrown over the wall, it's Russian roullette. It's a coin toss. It's pure chance.
However the whole charging station bit, I did find very fascinating, and to me did seem like a waste of money. But then again the State Department at that time was attempting to push greater commerce in that area on electric charged vehicles. Then again we also push military hardware onto Israel, and show them our latest gadgets for purchase.
Still I also believe that congress is overpayed, and that a paycut could have easily hired over a hundred men for security detail to be posted world wide. With extra chump change to be leftover. Even if the security detail was privately contracted, those same business' could have written it off under government tax breaks....
The total blame on monetary finance however falls to congress.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … te-depart/
“There are some levels of attack for which no reasonable precautions can prepare,” he said, adding that “any reasonable security presence” would likely have been overwhelmed by the gunmen.
The story is several pages long, so make sure you turn the pages to see the whole story.
A drone from Italy was launched and hovered over site. A naval task group was as close. Bases in France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and elsewhere could have sent "Active Ready" forces to at least be in the air and enroute, security forces in the nation were told to "Stand down"
A diplomat is important, when one is in danger we are supposed to send military in to protect him. This DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL! This was due to Hillary.
and before you question Army Readiness I have been confined to barracks, kit ready to go, ammunition stored ready for an emergency call. As part of the 101st Airborne I was expected to be able to deploy ANYWHERE in the world in less than 24 hours. And that is repeated at bases around the world, where as we can send a large amount in less than 24 hours, and a first reaction force ANYWHERE in less than 8 hours (and most places less than 4 hours).
We could have had at least 10 jets and a number of bombers hitting the area around the embassy as protective measures, we could have had marines and army soldiers dropping from copter to defend the perimeter, and we could have even allowed the spies, agents, and security assets in the country the ability to move as desired.
HILLARY KILL THAT AMBASSADOR VIA DENYING ANYONE THE RIGHT TO HELP HIM!
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090318 … ical_lulls
Security issues at diplomatic embassies.
A drone from Italy was launched and hovered over site. A naval task group was as close. Bases in France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and elsewhere could have sent "Active Ready" forces to at least be in the air and enroute, security forces in the nation were told to "Stand down"
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Active forces need PERMISSION from the countries in question to facilitate TROOP MOVEMENTS. Without Authorization of the country in question, NO TROOPS can land on foreign soil without that government strict permission. Doesn't matter that the embassy was considered U.S. Territory. Troops would still need to funnel through the country in question. Transfer orders have to be maintained in the chain of command.
It would have been considered a full on dimplomatic blowup, if we sent our troops through foreign territory. Each country has strict rules on how many ARMED guards/foreign troops are allowed WITHIN their own territory. Even the United States government, congress, and the State Department has to adhere to local law.
Do you think it's god damn easy to load a C-30 with assault troops and shuttle them from one country to another without that other country's express permission? Did you even read the transcripts of the total communications breakdown that occured during the attack between the embassy and the country in question where they were stationed? Even sending that stupid DRONE, wreaked havoc with the local government who was really PISSED off that military hardware was sent into their AIRSPACE, which was a strict NO NO.
A drone from Italy was launched and hovered over site. A naval task group was as close. Bases in France, Italy, Greece, Turkey, and elsewhere could have sent "Active Ready" forces to at least be in the air and enroute, security forces in the nation were told to "Stand down"
WHOA WHOA WHOA! Active forces need PERMISSION from the countries in question to facilitate TROOP MOVEMENTS. Without Authorization of the country in question, NO TROOPS can land on foreign soil without that government strict permission. Doesn't matter that the embassy was considered U.S. Territory. Troops would still need to funnel through the country in question. Transfer orders have to be maintained in the chain of command.
It would have been considered a full on dimplomatic blowup, if we sent our troops through foreign territory. Each country has strict rules on how many ARMED guards/foreign troops are allowed WITHIN their own territory. Even the United States government, congress, and the State Department has to adhere to local law.
Do you think it's god damn easy to load a C-30 with assault troops and shuttle them from one country to another without that other country's express permission? Did you even read the transcripts of the total communications breakdown that occured during the attack between the embassy and the country in question where they were stationed? Even sending that stupid DRONE, wreaked havoc with the local government who was really PISSED off that military hardware was sent into their AIRSPACE, which was a strict NO NO.
Key, at his keyboard, has been able to figure out in a few minutes why any pretense of preparedness involves an active high-level diplomatic response from the State Department to get any American anywhere near trouble overseas.
I would only add that the State Department has experience of all those other attacks, and so, everything Key just pointed out was known to Hillary Clinton's advisors years before. She inherited awareness of the need for her direct involvement.
Now if only Key can figure out why he knows more than Hillary Clinton, and he has some leg to stand on.
Otherwise he's just made our case. She sucked at being Secretary of State.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Why Hillary would lose in 2016
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.