he did say he'd sign up to be paid to like hillary/become a hill-shill once
https://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=301205.msg9190874#msg9190874
Where's my money, Clinton?
Joking aside, dismissing an argument as buzzwords doesn't really prove those words don't apply.
Again, someone can't defend Clinton so they pull out the "b-b-but Drumpf :(" excuse. Clinton rarely missed an opportunity to support wars and conflicts when she was Secretary of State. She is one of the most hawkish, war hungry politicians in recent memory. Please get out of the thread if you don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/combating-terrorism/In hindsight, that was a poorly thought out argument on my part.
Terrorism is a show intended to cause a reaction. It's like trolling with human lives. From a realist standpoint, we have accomplished our goal of stopping terrorists from attacking the U.S. Unfortunately, that's because they're attacking countries in the middle east instead, as post-9/11 intervention destabilized an already unstable region, which from a liberalist point of view is unacceptable.
Still better than what Annoying Orange's got (i.e. nothing but saying "it'll be great") though.
And yes, "better than the other candidate" is pretty much why we have elections.
