No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.

Basic fact fail. The vote was 297-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. There were plenty of brave voices willing to stand up against the Iraq War. HRC was not one of them. She does not get a pass for that clusterfuck, nor any of the clusterfucks that occurred while she was serving in the Obama Administration.

Good for you. You're also adept at putting words into my mouth. But feel free to excuse away HRC's bad judgment if it makes you feel better.

Carly spouted off on Saturday about net neutrality, and claimed that it was forced down our throats by lobbyists from Verizon and Comcast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And she says this as a former CEO of HP. I hope her campaign fails soon because her voice gives me faceslapping injuries.

Stockholm syndrome got its name from a bank robbery that occurred in Stockholm; it has no real or perceived reference to Swedish soceity. Incidentally, that society is a social democracy and there's a huge difference between that and socialism by most definitions. Despite what you may have "learned" from cable news there's plenty of capitalism going on in Sweden....

Oh, by the way, your criticism of GWB, that he deposed a regime and created a power vacuum leaving an opening for Islamic extremists:

Did you pay attention to what we did in Libya? Or who the Secretary of State was while we were doing it?

Which part did you miss? The part where Senator Clinton voted in favor of the AUMF that authorized the Iraq War or the part where she served with an administration that made "regime change" in Syria national policy? Perhaps both?

You may be willing to stick your head in the sand and forget about the AUMF but I'm not. HRC was a policymaker when the seeds were laid for every problem that I outlined. She does not get a pass. Your knee-jerk defense of her suggests to me that you're a Democratic partisan and not worth taking seriously.

If she disagreed with the policy and had any backbone she would have resigned. Since she didn't we can conclude that she either agreed with the policy or she didn't have enough courage of conviction to resign. Neither one of those options suggests that she's fit to sit in the Oval Office.

I think my grandmother could have done a better job running HP.

Are you serious? The World is going to shit and she oversaw four years of our foreign policy. Russia is annexing parts of her neighbors, ISIS is on the march, China is bullying her neighbors, North Korea still has nuclear weapons, Iran may yet obtain them, and she was one of the biggest cheerleaders for regime change in Libya. That's just her list of "accomplishments" as SecState; wanna talk about her time in the Senate? Two words: Iraq AUMF.

I'd say her entire record as Senator and Secretary of State is a glaring failure. Why don't you proffer something she did right instead of saying she didn't completely fuck up?

Not exactly a ringing endorsement when one looks at the current geopolitical situation.

That depends on what kind of shape she's in. :)

A carload of Christians must have pulled up and busted some down-mods into this post. The guy uses British spelling but he's absolutely correct. Organizing a "Jesus sodomizing Mary" contest in Texas would be a suicide attempt.