Would the World Survive a Killary presidency?

131 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313
Would the World Survive a Killary presidency?

from Steve McMillan...

Putin: “The World is Being Pulled in an Irreversible Direction”

 I will leave you with the warning Putin issued to foreign journalists at the end of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on the 17th of June, regarding how NATO and the US are driving the world towards nuclear war, yet the Western public is absolutely oblivious to this reality considering the complete blackout in the mainstream media:

“The Iranian threat does not exist but the NATO missile defense system is being positioned in Europe… Now the system is functioning and being loaded with missiles… So, these are being loaded with missiles that can penetrate territories within a 500km range; but we know that technologies advance, and we even know in which year the US will accomplish the next missile. This missile will be able to penetrate distances of up to 1000km, and then even further; and from that point on, they will start to directly threaten Russia’s nuclear potential.”

Putin continues:

“We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know; it’s only you [the journalists] that they tell tall-tales too and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel the sense of impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that theworld is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing’s going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.”
http://journal-neo.org/2016/09/07/there-has-never-been-anyone-less-qualified-than-killary-to-be-president/

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

babble needs some kind of "Chicken Little" forum for all of the pessimistic, partisan, clickbait Eeyore nonsense that currently gets lumped in with actual news that's actually happening in the actual world.

"Will Canada survive their slavish devotion to NATO?"

"If we don't turn the Leap Manifesto into law immediately you'll die screaming in a flood!!"

"Will Americans really allow Clinton to annihilate half of the world??"

"When will the U.N. declare Canada a non-democracy so the rest of the world can rightly shun us???"

"Is Canada's support of Israel a war crime and could we all be hanged for it????"

There's a special internet technology that's made JUST for silliness like this, called a BLOG.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Again, I raised this question a couple of years ago to no avail:

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/ukrainerussia-threads-inventory

Remember that we have in the past seen duplicate threads deleted  or merged. No such luck on the troll factory and  conspiracist stuff.

Maybe you could try posting a few of these threads of your own to see how far you can push the envelope.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Maybe you could try posting a few of these threads of your own to see how far you can push the envelope.

The temptation is there, but I couldn't really pull it off with a straight face (and/or, too many people would reply without understanding the joke).  My own answers to the above would be:

- Yes.

- No we won't.

- She has no such plans.

- Never.

- No, and no.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think I see what's going on here.

I don't really believe that the Hillary/Shrillary/Killary folks genuinely prefer Trump.  But they're enjoying some kind of Disney movie fantasy wherein, once Hillary is out of the picture, either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein will help the orphans put on a talent show to raise enough money to save the farm from foreclosure (by Hillary).

Except, of course, this isn't The Little Rascals, and if the FBI were to drag Clinton to Guantanamo in leg irons, their next assignment would be to repaint the Oval Office in Donald Trump's favourite colour.

6079_Smith_W

I think it is a mixture of both. After all, Trump has talked about changing the terms of NATO, he has made no secret of his bromance with V. Putin.

When Julian Assange was asked about it he would only say he has no ide what would happen if Trump became president. And you don't have to go through too many pages here to find people saying they'd love to see the evil empire crash and burn. Hardly sounds like a vote for Jill Stein, does it?

So no, I don't think it is just wishful thinking green party and Bernie ex Machina wishful thinkers. Near as I .can tell, some are well aware of who stands to benefit and have no problem with him being president. And I think there are some who haven't even thought that far.

While I can't pretend to know what is really going on behind some of these positions, they certainly don't seem to be well-thought out.

swallow swallow's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

babble needs some kind of "Chicken Little" forum for all of the pessimistic, partisan, clickbait Eeyore nonsense that currently gets lumped in with actual news that's actually happening in the actual world.

Can it be sub-titled "discuss weirdass conspiracy shit from a pro-Putin point of view"?

6079_Smith_W

.... passive aggressive Putin position, surely.

No one has actually come right out and said thay are FOR him. That would be too much like showing your hand.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Can it be sub-titled "discuss weirdass conspiracy shit from a pro-Putin point of view"?

Wouldn't that be "othering" if some crank who comes along who's not pro-Putin?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Would the world survive a Trump presidency?

That is the only other possibility.

And why should anyone on the Left listen to a reactionary, militaristic, Islamophobic gaybasher like Putin? 

 

6079_Smith_W

Ken Burch wrote:

Would the world survive a Trump presidency?

That is the only other possibility.

Of course that's irrelevant, because there is no difference between the two of them. Isn't that how that narrative goes?

But we can't have Hillary because it will be the end of the world.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Estrogen, uranium, potayto, potahto. It's all ending with a big boom.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Better question. Would the world survive a Donald Trump presidency?

I think that is a real discussion for debate.

iyraste1313

¨Yes¨

So...right now the Turkish army has invaded N. Syria and now with the backing of USA, with the game plan in mind to keep the YPG from uniting its Territory of Rojava and to take Raqqa and maintain control of their oil base of operations...Meanwhile the YPG is gaining Territory in their pursuit and control of Raqqa, as is the Syrian Arab Army backed by Russia.

So we are facing imminent confrontation between Russia and the USA.

Meanwhile it is Killary that is demanding increased USA forces to Northern Syria, while preparing the neocon plan to take Iran, what with the CIA alreay engaged in support of dissident elelments amongst the Iran´s Kurdish population...in preparation!

But ÿes¨everything is okay...no need to encourage the youth in our parts to lay off the recreational drugs and electronic gadgets to start paying ttention, organize and take actions to stop this insanity!

Sorry but the complacency of this ÿes¨ reeks of insanity! 

iyraste1313

further confirmation....

from Southfront, today...

¨Iranian troops arrived in the countryside of southern Aleppo to help bolster pro-government forces for further offensives.¨

Let´s be clear...I do not support Trump either...but it is Killary who is preparing to engage Iran!

6079_Smith_W

Sorry, what?

Hillary made Iran send troops into Syria?

 

iyraste1313

Just one more pretext for Killary to engage, that´s all! No doubt you will be hearing from her neocons on this soon enough!

6079_Smith_W

Right, because Hillary is everywhere just waiting to subvert the natural order of things . Maybe we should start calling her Goldstein.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Clinton isn't sending troops anywhere. She isn't in office.

bekayne

iyraste1313 wrote:

¨Yes¨

So...right now the Turkish army has invaded N. Syria and now with the backing of USA

I thought the usual suspects had been claiming that Erdogan and Putin were now the best of friends

swallow swallow's picture

No no, we have always been at war with Erdoganasia. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
no need to encourage the youth in our parts to lay off the recreational drugs and electronic gadgets to start paying ttention

Granddad??!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Clinton..LOL! Would you please pay attention to what Trump is saying. Neocon war hawks have NOTHING on the alt-right movement. Far more scarier and far more dangerous.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Even if he *doesn't* have a scary pun you can make with his name!

That it's even a discussion whether Trump is more dangerous than Clinton is mind-boggling.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If you're really, really mad at Hillary Clinton, or the Democrats, or the whole U.S. electoral system, then I suppose it must be kind of galling to even admit that she's the lesser of two evils.  Silliness ensues.

Cody87

I can't wait until Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and gets the 2nd amendment repealed. The the police can go door to door and politely collect the 300 million currently legal firearms from 100 million extremely patriotic firearm owners.

That doesn't scare me at all.

Neither does a no fly zone over Syria to stop Russia from bombing ISIS.

I also have no reason to be concerned about Clinton "nation building" in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And I'm definitely not concerned about the possiblity of a further increases in tensions between NATO under Clinton and the BRICS alliance under Putin.

None of those things scare me, but did you hear that Trump wants to build a wall and tighten immigration laws? It's so obvious that he's literally Hitler. It truly is absolutely mind boggling that there's a discussion about whether Trump (reminder: literally Hitler) is more dangerous than Clinton (reminder: not Hitler), what possible reason(s) could anyone even conceive of that possibility?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

No US president is ever going to try to confiscate people's guns.  None would ever be THAT stupid.

Sending the military or the police door-to-door to take away the firearms of civilians would instantly incite a massive armed uprising, with untold casualties on both sides and most likely result in some sort of dictatorial regime no matter which side-civilian or state-ended up winning. 

If a US president actually wanted to set up a police state, she or he would never confiscate personal weaponry-he or she(or eventually they, if a trans version of Adam Sutler ever appeared) would carpetbomb a large city or two(or possibly an entire "red state") in the dead of night, in order to instantly instill fear in the population with as little troop exposure as possible).  The tactic would be annihilation, not one-on-one combat in which the government forces would have no strategic or tactical advantage or all.

Those who think gun confiscation would be the first step in the establishment of tyranny make a fundamental mistake in their analysis of the tyrranical mind:  They assume a would-be tyrant would be decent enough to "fight fair".

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Did you hear Trump suggest he'd deploy nukes? And that he doesn't understand mutually assured destruction? That he's going to build up the military further? The stupid wall is a distraction from the larger damages her like to inflict. And he's not talking about "tightening" immigration, he's talking about rounding up 11 million people, potentially by force. Gosh, that doesn't sound Hitlerian at all.

6079_Smith_W

I don't see any of those doomsday scenarios happening, and I see Trump doing probably just as much damage doing what he is doing already as he would if he became president. After all, he has poisoned the water already by saying if he loses it is proof things are fixed.

And it is worth remembering that Jimmy Carter said he considered Trump not as bad as Ted Cruz.

But I do think things like who might be chosen as a supreme court nominee is a significant difference that could potentially be longer lasting than any wall. There have been justices who lasted longer than the one in Berlin.

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Nor do I, but Cody's memory seems a little short.

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, and the not interfering in the Middle East thing came back to bite him in the ass last night. Not that his base will notice the lie.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

@Cody.

He's mentioned much more than building a wall. For one thing,there is no chance in Hell that Mexico is going to pay for it.

I think you should dig deeper at things he has said and more importantly,the people he has surrounding him and feeding him his talking points.

Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes,Rudy Guiliani...His supporters,the KKK and other white nationalist groups.

Listen to his 'tough talk' about crime and law and order. What do you think he has mind? Listen to him. He openly wants to turn the US into a complete Police State.

Look at how he treats the media. How he blacklists media circles who fact check him. I think at this point the only 2 media outlets he gives time for is Breitbart.com and Faux News.

Tell me. Trump said he can rid the world of ISIS in 30 DAYS!! What do you think he has in mind.

I can come up with much more but it''s early in the morning and I'm too tired.

But how would Trump be as President? GFoogle Mike Pence. Take a good look at thje people he surrounds himself with. Listen to what he says.,especially what he says off the cuff.

I'm no Conservative but I can hear his message clearly  through the barrage of dog whistles he blows.

Get over the fact that Clinton is a Republican and a war hawk. Trump is a fucking certified maniac.

Cody87

This is probably not productive, but I'll give it a go.

alan smithee wrote:

@Cody.

He's mentioned much more than building a wall. For one thing,there is no chance in Hell that Mexico is going to pay for it.

Well, Mexico isn't going to write a cheque for it if that's what you mean. It's absolutely within the power of the U.S. government to make Mexico pay for it, whether it's the Mexican government (through trade measures, withholding aid, etc) or the illegal immigrants living in America (through taxing remittances sent back to Mexico).

So Trump can make Mexico pay for the wall in the same way as a parent could make a child pay for a broken window by withholding allowance.

By the way, "Mexico won't pay for the wall" is a trap. Every time a Trump detractor says "Mexico won't pay for the wall," you're bringing attention back to one of Trump's most popular policies (in the U.S.) and easiest boasts to realize once in office. In the context of the U.S. economy, the wall is not expensive and anyone who cares about illegal immigration would rather see the wall on America's dime than no wall because Mexico won't pay for it. So even as they point out what I pointed out above, internally they don't even care if America ends up paying for it because they just want the wall. By saying Mexico would pay for it, Trump skipped right over the debate of "wall or no wall" to "will Mexico pay for the wall" - something easier for his detractors to criticize but something nobody actually cares about. And then, as here, it's used as an example of him being "wrong" as though all instances of being "wrong" about something are equally bad.

Quote:
I think you should dig deeper at things he has said and more importantly,the people he has surrounding him and feeding him his talking points.

Steve Bannon,Roger Ailes,Rudy Guiliani...His supporters,the KKK and other white nationalist groups.

Sure, and his prominent supporters in the alt-right, Milo Yiannopoulos, Stefan Molyneux, Stephen Crowder, Mike Cernovich, Alex Marlow...have I missed any? I've been paying attention.

So Trump is an egotistical maniac who never listens to anyone which makes him dangerous because he's unpredictable. But if it's a crazy white supremacist whispering in his ear then suddenly he loses all independent thought and becomes a puppet. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Neither of those propositions are good, but they are mutually exclusive so it would be a lot more convincing if the story stayed straight.

Never mind the fact that Trump denounced the KKK as well as neo-Nazis, explicitly, all the way back in 2000 when he left the Reform party.

Quote:
Listen to his 'tough talk' about crime and law and order. What do you think he has mind? Listen to him. He openly wants to turn the US into a complete Police State.

There are cities in the United States where young black men are less safe (more likely to die) than on deployment in the middle east. Imagine if there were Canadian cities where young people were encouraged to join the military and go to a desert halfway across the world to fight terrorists because they would be safer.

I'd be talking about law and order too.

Quote:
Look at how he treats the media. How he blacklists media circles who fact check him. I think at this point the only 2 media outlets he gives time for is Breitbart.com and Faux News.

This is another one of those things that is a trap. Donald Trump revoked the press credentials of a specific outlet, IIRC the Washington Post. Now, to be clear, they could still come to his press conferences etc. but he wasn't going to take their questions. He was still dealing with all the other outlets but claimed the Post was too biased. What a lunatic, he actually thinks the media is biased in favour of Hillary! Two weeks later, a bunch of DNC emails get leaked which show massive collusion between the democrats and the media, with by far the worst offending outlet being - you guessed it - the Washington Post with more than 20 writers taking their lead from the DNC.

This does not make Donald Trump look bad.

Quote:
Tell me. Trump said he can rid the world of ISIS in 30 DAYS!! What do you think he has in mind.

Boots on the ground and working with Russia, instead of hindering Russia. We know Clinton doesn't want to defeat ISIS - she wants the middle east destabilized with infighting to weaken Iran's influence in order to protect Israel. Thanks, Wikileaks.

Quote:
I can come up with much more but it''s early in the morning and I'm too tired.

I'll be waiting. None of this scares me as much as Clinton.

I mean honestly. Your reasons for being terrified of Trump are:

He said Mexico will pay for the wall.

Some of his supporters are racists.

He wants to address rising crime in a major cities where even the police are starting to get assassinated.

He doesn't like the media that is completely in the tank for his opponent.

Honestly, do you think Clinton has a healthier relationship with the media?

If my choice is someone who might ban the media, and someone who already and provably owns it, well, that's a wash they are equally bad.

Quote:
But how would Trump be as President? GFoogle Mike Pence. Take a good look at thje people he surrounds himself with. Listen to what he says.,especially what he says off the cuff.

Tim Kaine is far more likely to be president than Mike Pence is.

Quote:
I'm no Conservative but I can hear his message clearly  through the barrage of dog whistles he blows.

You mean your confirmation bias is so strong that you interpret literally everything he says to have the worst possible meaning.

Quote:
Get over the fact that Clinton is a Republican and a war hawk. Trump is a fucking certified maniac.

I have yet to be convinced that Trump is likely to be as bad, from a loss of human life perspective, as Clinton is certain to be.

Geoff

Looks like the world is going to have to survive the presidency of one of these two right-wingers. However, the country is pretty much run by the military and the secret police, so the decision to go to war, drop bombs and missiles, and kill innocent people won't be left up to either candidate. Power in the US just isn't wielded that way.

Cody87

Timebandit wrote:
Did you hear Trump suggest he'd deploy nukes?

No. When was this?

6079_Smith_W

Cody87 wrote:

I have yet to be convinced that Trump is likely to be as bad, from a loss of human life perspective, as Clinton is certain to be.

It has nothing to do with speculations about loss of life, or imagining that any wall is going to be built. That is not going to happen.

The man is simply unqualified for the job. Really, whether he gets it or not is kind of irrelevant. He is doing the real damage right now. 

As for Clinton's supposed powers, just look at how free a rein Obama had during the last eight years.

But I do appreciate you coming right out and saying it. That's more than Julian Assange did.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
so the decision to go to war, drop bombs and missiles, and kill innocent people won't be left up to either candidate. Power in the US just isn't wielded that way.

It's actually Congress who decides when to go to war.  The POTUS just signs the paper.

But Congressional elections are boring.  And there are so many of them!  So let's just argue about who would be "the WAR President".

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Nuff said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLWaoMCUg0g

Yoiu think this babboon is President material? Get your head checked,Cody.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

so the decision to go to war, drop bombs and missiles, and kill innocent people won't be left up to either candidate. Power in the US just isn't wielded that way.

It's actually Congress who decides when to go to war.  The POTUS just signs the paper.

But Congressional elections are boring.  And there are so many of them!  So let's just argue about who would be "the WAR President".

That is what is supposed to happen however the POTUS now makes those kinds of decisions on his/her own. The idea that the Congress needs to approve military actions is a quaint notion from the past.Tell the people of Libya that the US and its NATO allies where not engaged in war when they had most of their modern infrastructure bombed into the dark ages.

Quote:

Most legal scholars agree that the nation’s founders intended to separate the power to decide to initiate a war from the power to carry it out. But ever since the Korean War, presidents of both parties have ordered military action without Congressional authorization.

The divergence between presidential practice for the past 60 years and the text and history of the Constitution makes it hard to say whether such action is lawful, scholars say. “There’s no more dramatic example of the ‘living Constitution’ than in this area,” said David Golove, a New York University law professor.

...

The administration’s legal team appears to be distinguishing between a full war and a more limited military operation, on the theory that the Libyan intervention falls short of what would prompt any Congressional authority to control decisions about whether to initiate hostilities.Asked about Mr. Obama’s 2007 statement, Tom Donilon, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, said Monday that the administration “welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.” But, Mr. Donilon added, Mr. Obama could authorize the operation on his own.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?partner=rss...

6079_Smith_W

alan smithee wrote:

Yoiu think this babboon is President material?

I think it was shitgibbon, actually. Cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Yoiu think this babboon is President material? Get your head checked,Cody.

Many believe that things have to get worse before they'll get better.  They believe that the greatest threat to the world right now is "comfort" -- if people have a job and a car and some leisure time and they basically think their life is OK then radical change will never happen.

So if Clinton is bad and Trump is worse, support Trump.  Maybe if things are a living hell for the next four years the complacent middle classes will take to the streets.  But if Clinton does nothing to enrage them -- or worse yet, if they actually like some of her policies -- then nobody's gonna get hanged by their own entrails.

Happens every election.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Yoiu think this babboon is President material?

I think it was shitgibbon, actually. Cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon.

Yeah. Why insult an intelligent animal such as a baboon?

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Remember my baboon story?

I think it's pertinent here too.  I mean, what better way to slash Clinton and the DNC in the ass than by supporting President Trump?  Right now, in the middle of the chase, is literally the perfect time.

I guess I forgot to mention, in the original story, that once the payback went down it turned into a baboon fight, the prey got away, and all the baboons went to bed without dinner. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

'Progressives' for Trump. Haha charade you are!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Progressives for Trump just signed an historic accord with Vegans for Bacon. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yup makes as much sense as Peaceniks for Hillary.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Good slash, sir!  Good slash!

 

Cody87

I don't recall ever saying Trump was presidential material. Literally the only things I've said are that Clinton is likely more dangerous, he is not stupid, and I showed some examples of how he gets attacked for literally everything which means that some of the things he is attacked for actually generate positive publicity for him. Like the wall. Like law and order. Like his contempt for the corrupt media. I don't like the man, but he's not wrong about everything.

Literally anything Trump says or does, his detractors build a giant strawman and then show how that strawman argument shows he is Hitler. He's eating a taco bowl! The pandering racist! He's going to Mexico! What a fool! (Mexico trip goes okay). He didn't come out swinging and get Nieto to agree to pay for the wall! <- how is this an actual attack I can't even make this up

He went to Louisiana and got criticized for only going for the photo op. Can you imagine what would have been said about him if he hadn't gone? Do you think he would have gotten the same pass Hillary and Obama got? "Trump didn't go to Louisiana - not presidential material."

Again, I don't think he is presidential material, but anyone who thinks he is covered fairly by the media or the establishment has their head deep in the sand. He would probably be doing worse if those reporting on him had held to some degree of objectivity, but it's gone now and has been for months.

So anyway, I have made three points:

1. Trump is probably less dangerous than Hillary, who has been on the wrong side of virtually every foreign policy decision she's ever been involved in.

2. Trump is not stupid, it should be obvious by now that he knows what he's doing

3. Before criticizing something Trump does, like going to Detroit "to listen", his detractors should check their bias at the door and see if they are just being played for fools for free publicity.

Notably absent point:

Trump is presidential material.

 

 

 

I am still waiting for someone to show when Trump suggested he'd deploy nukes. Is this a strawman too?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

I have yet to be convinced that Trump is likely to be as bad, from a loss of human life perspective, as Clinton is certain to be.

It has nothing to do with speculations about loss of life, or imagining that any wall is going to be built. That is not going to happen.

The man is simply unqualified for the job. Really, whether he gets it or not is kind of irrelevant. He is doing the real damage right now. 

As for Clinton's supposed powers, just look at how free a rein Obama had during the last eight years.

But I do appreciate you coming right out and saying it. That's more than Julian Assange did.

 

Also, Trump is specifically calling for a country where some people are automatically considered less American and less trustworthy than others, and essentially treated as fair game for hate speech, mob violence, and police brutality, simply because of their religion or ethnicity, and a country in which only Protestants of Northern European or British Isles descent are seen as "real Americans".  Do you really think that that is no big deal, Cody?  Do you really think that the US should have a leader who treats large groups of its own citizens as essentially part of the enemy?

And as for crime in the cities...actually, violent crime has been falling sharply in most of US cities for decades now, and will keep falling even if criminal justice reform and and sentencing reform are put in place, so there is no epidemic of crime and people of color are no more inherently violent or criminal than anyone else.

The people of the United States have nothing to gain from electing an arrogant, belllicose, possibly delusional total bastard as presdient.  It's not about electing a Nightclub-Heckler-In-Chief, or a Highest Bully In The Land.

Hillary has a lot of flaws, but at least she's not trying to incite a freaking race war. 

Trump simply has nothing positive to offer for his country, and cannot make anything better.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Also, in his appearance this week in the "Commander-in-Chief townhall", Trump's main proposal for the Iraq situation was that the US should "take the oil".  How would a US decision to do that NOT lead to a massive escalation of the US military presence in Iraq AND even more destabilization than anything Hillary could possibly do?

 

 

Pages