Hillary Clinton Rapes the Poor

Eric Zuesse

Read this.

And, read this.

Still not convinced? Read this.

And that’s not the worst of her. But, if you will then click onto the links in each of those three articles, you’ll get to it. (Here’s a hint. But only a hint, because in her deeds, not her words, she has been a reliable fighter for this, which would effectively nullify the Paris accord on climate change. And climate change devastates the poor regions of the world the worst.)

This isn’t telling anyone whom to vote for, just providing the record on one candidate who would clearly and unequivocally be a catastrophe as the U.S. President.

Yes, this is partisan, but so was Abraham Lincoln. So was FDR. And so, always, is the truth. The truth is always partisan against deceit (something she practices psychopathically). So: the real questions here are: What’s the evidence? How reliable is it? For those questions, check out the links and their linked-to sources — they’re the most-solid evidence that has yet been published anywhere on their respective matters. You won’t find any Republican mythologists there, only documents whose authenticity this writer has carefully investigated and found to be authentic.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    the paris accord is a bunch of unenforceable bullocks. and, surely you know that carbon taxes unfairly target the poor.

    why in the world would you expect that the war on carbon will turn out any different than the wars on poverty, gun violence, drugs, terror or cholesterol?

    these wars are not intended to be won.

    Paris climate change accord is just the beginning

    But the agreement’s significant shortcomings underscore why this is only the beginning of a long and arduous battle. For example, a framework for transparency and compliance, through reporting and monitoring, has not yet been developed.

    ….while the accord recognizes the differing responsibilities and obligations to address the crisis, individual financial commitments are not enforceable.

    ….Since certain key provisions of the accord are not binding, political mobilization and naming and shaming will remain essential to prod nations to honor their commitments

  • Brockland A.T.

    Hillary partisans probably know all about her crimes. And agree with them. The 20% of partisan Dems aren’t much better than the 20% of partisan GOPs.

    Scary thing is, the only leading presidential contender without bloodied hands, is Donald Trump, and to be a serious contender, he has to sound even more bloodthristy than Miss. “We came, we saw, he died.”

    Dibs on ‘said it first’; if Trump gets the ticket (and lives), the anyone but Trump bandwagon will ‘discover’ John McAfee, the Libertarian candidate half the users of McAfee AV wouldn’t recognize.

    • cettel

      The 20% of partisan Dems aren’t any better than the 60% of partisan GOPs. Your ratios were way off.

      • Brockland A.T.

        OK, 40% was admittedly pulled from memory and not checked.

        Er, whups. My fault for trying too hard to forget, and thankfully succeeding. However, the point still stands. Party partisans are not all that fussy on voting day as that is the whole point of being a partisan.

        Its easy enough to find an electoral turnout story to quote, and I’ve posted similarly before. Still, let’s see what Google will draw.


        In the above case, from LiveScience (Nov. 05, 2012), since ~40% of Americans won’t vote in presidential elections, obviously ~60% did.

        The actual 2012 results are: Obama, 51%, Romney, 48%.


        Meaning ~30% voted Democrat or Republican, the (~) covering marginal losses to independents, undecided voters, residual (spoiled) ballots, and of course, the winning margin.

        Although the Electoral College vote handed Obama a far larger victory compared to the popular vote (332-206 for Obama, 270 needed to win), the popular vote, being the popular vote, is reflective of actual voting voter support.

        Therefore all I did wrong was quote the division of the wrong half of a ratio (the 40% when it should have been the 60%) of a particular year. Again bearing in mind voter turnout studies generally find the same national results; a minority of partisan votes actually win the presidency.


        The margin of undecided voters is slippery at best, hence the (~). Its
        not clear how many voters were undecided to begin with and they may not
        be statistically significant. Or, my 20% initial call was by happenstance in the ballpark.


        Regardless of what Dems think of Hillary, her people enthusiastically support her, although no numbers were quoted as the Hillary versus Bernie numbers aren’t officially settled yet.

        The most extreme GOP Trump haters, the neocons, have made public their willingness to vote Hillary, and although politically powerful, do not enjoy commensurate numerical strength in the GOP. No numbers here were quoted, because the percentage of Trump supporters has yet to be officially counted.

        However, political partisans will with great (however forced) enthusiasm vote for whichever candidate wins their party’s selection process. That’s the whole point of being partisan; being Party first.

        However, nowhere did I find any study suggesting the GOP has 60% popular support to a Dem 20% popular support. Where the heck does that come from?

        Concerned about making your presidential vote count over the Electoral College?

        “FairVote supports the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every
        vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.”


        Support your Constitution, Today!