Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, will announce today that he will seek the GOP nomination for president in 2016, ABC News has learned.
So many of the same faces over and over. They can't seem to find a single moderate, nor would their base vote for one.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Rick Santorum is not happy about the rules for the first 2016 Republican primary debate, hosted by Fox News, which will limit the number of candidates onstage based on their standing in the polls. [...]
Fox News announced Thursday that the debate competitors would be determined by an average of the last five major national polls of the GOP race. The top 10 competitors will be allowed to debate, and the field could potentially expand to 11 if there's a tie for 10th. [...]
Santorum is currently near the bottom of the field in polls, along with other declared or potential contenders like former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. May 22, 2015 ... - ( New Window )
Given a choice of everyone who's come forward so far Â
that the packing the clown car path to the nomination approach was less than ideal. The Democratic field is thus far tiny, and yet again every Rep with a shred of national exposure seems to be throwing their hat in the ring. Blah.
So many of the same faces over and over. They can't seem to find a single moderate, nor would their base vote for one.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
But I just don't see anyone particularly likeable in that field.
While the strong base isn't going to vote for anyone not in their party, those left-center Democrats or right-center Republicans can be swayed to vote for the other guy if the candidate can hit the right notes. And I'm just not seeing any of those candidates on the right.
Again, the problem is that any of those right-center guys aren't likely to get the nomination, because the base says that they aren't conservative enough (Democrats are doing this too, with trying to implore Warren to run, or getting excited about Sanders, while losing enthusiasm for Clinton because she's not liberal enough).
When it comes time to vote in the primary, people are looking for someone who is conservative/liberal enough but not so bat-shit crazy liberal/conservative that they could never compete in a general election. In 2012, that's how we got Mitt Romney, a guy who changed his position so often to make both sides happy, and suddenly you think he must be right-center, while who knows what we really had in him.
Being the #2 finisher in the previous contested cycle has been a very strong path to the nomination on the GOP side (Reagan, GHWB, Dole, McCain, Romney -- all but GWB??). So it was pretty obvious that he would run, even if he seemingly doesnt have a shot.
But the GOP side really seems overrun with people who are running (1) in order to improve/maintain a personal brand for post-primary reasons (e.g. Fox gig or to be a "player" in the party/Senate) or (2) at the behest of the campaign-industrial complex, whereby many 2nd and 3rd tier campaigns are run so as to enrich campaign operatives.
Most of the big Tea Party organizations are now just a racket to separate rank and file conservatives from their money. The draft Ben Carson PAC has raised $15 million ... but has no affiliation with Dr. C and its leader has been barred by Carson's camp from getting his photo with the doctor (since it would be used to trick people into giving more).
Slick Rick, I don't see how having more and more candidates is a bad thing.
I mean we already have essentially no difference in choice with a One party system controlling elections, at least one party is throwing out the illusion that there are more choices available to win the nomination. Next step would be to actually allow 3rd parties with real substantial differences into the debate. Here's to hoping that the GOP goes the way of the Whig's and that becomes more likely.
give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
If we discussed previously that some of these guys are probably running just for the exposure, or because they want to the vice president job, etc. Who do you think is a serious candidate, or who do you think has another reason?
Officially in the Race
Ben Carson: Serious
Ted Cruz: Ulterior Motive
Carly Fiorina: Not Sure
Mike Huckabee: Ulterior Motive
Rand Paul: Serious
Marco Rubio: Not Sure
Rick Santorum: Ulterior Motive
Announcement Pending
Lindsey Graham: Not Sure
George Pataki: Serious
Rick Perry: Serious, I think
Exploring a Candidacy
Jeb Bush: Serious
Chris Christie: Serious
Bobby Jindal: Ulterior Motive
John Kasick: Ulterior Motive
Donald Trump: Ulterior Motive
Scott Walker: Serious
Maybe, Maybe not
Bob Ehrlich: Ulterior Motive
Jim Gilmore: Ulterior Motive
Peter King: Ulterior Motive
vote for a moderate Republican candidate as an alternative to Hillary Clinton if they wheel a desirable one out. I have visions of a Hillary Clinton presidency straight out of The Dead Zone.
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
''
How many of these guys seriously believe they are contenders?
Bramton1 : 12:21 pm : link : reply
If we discussed previously that some of these guys are probably running just for the exposure, or because they want to the vice president job, etc. Who do you think is a serious candidate, or who do you think has another reason?
Officially in the Race
Ben Carson: Serious Foot in Mouth Moments T/Come
Ted Cruz: May Think He Can Win
Carly Fiorina: Nice Lady, no Chance
Mike Huckabee: Huckster Runs radio show from back of his oldsmobile
Rand Paul: Seriously Right Wing
Marco Rubio: Could . Go . All . The . Way
Rick Santorum: One hit wonder?
Announcement Pending
Lindsey Graham: Baby Boomers - please just go away already
George Pataki: Seriously Deluded
Rick Perry: Serious, He Thinks, He Really Thinks he is damn serious and seriously does think he is.
Exploring a Candidacy
Jeb Bush: Serious Douchebag
Chris Christie: Seriously Fat
Bobby Jindal: Decent Candidate
John Kasick: Who In Fucking Hell is John Fucking Kasic?
Donald Trump: Façade Promoter
Scott Walker: Seriously, who?
Maybe, Maybe not
Bob Ehrlich: Never Heard of him
Jim Gilmore: Never Heard of him
Peter King: Is a Law and Order Republican even a true Conservative at all?
vote for a moderate Republican candidate as an alternative to Hillary Clinton if they wheel a desirable one out. I have visions of a Hillary Clinton presidency straight out of The Dead Zone.
And I would consider a moderate Democrat as an alternative to Hillary and the Republicans. A Bill Clinton type minus the lying, baggage, corruption and wife.
give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Vote for Bernie. I know he has his faults but seriously who in their right mind would vote for Hillary? She is the most dishonest person in America.
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Basically, the presidential version of the last NYC mayoral election.
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
You should save your vote then. By that logic you're saying Hillary IS viable. Now that's laughable. No, actually it's scary.
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
selecting the 'least bad' candidate since the 1952 election between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. Unfortunately, we've allowed the inmates (politicians) to run the asylum. Ultimate payback is Hillary or Jeb in the White House.
it seems like both parties have boxed themselves Â
into status quo lists of positions on items, that, taken as a whole, are just absurd.
at least, with outsiders such as Paul and Sanders, you could have actual debate.
I mean, it would be hard to vote for Paul due to his (is this his position?) isolationism,
and Sanders is a self deluded communist, so...yeah...but, a debate would be worth watching since they would break down the prevailing mind lock on varied subjects.
''According to the Huffington Post, unlike his more stridently "non-interventionist" father, Paul sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases.[87]''
also- he is not as anti gay marriage (I am for gay marriage, what the hell, until we repeal the state intrusions on family, it needs to be equal) as one would think. its more nuanced than that.
Rand is not nearly as wacked out, nor as huckster-ish as his father.
the republican clown car gets more clowns
it is so funny!
as I said before - this plays exactly into Jeb Bush's hands
Jeb wants so many republican clowns running they will dilute the crazy republican tea party vote among different candidates so that low double digits in early primaries will give Jeb front runner status.
By the time Republicans figure out what is going on Jeb will have sewn up the nomination.
the media only makes money if the election is a horse race and Hillary is so far out in front of all these republican candidates that
Trust me Hillary will get completely trashed by the media from now until election day .
not an idealogue who has actually demonstrated that they have successfully run a large organization (gov't, industry, academia) that, while strong in their convictions, can compomise for the greater good of the country.
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
So many of the same faces over and over. They can't seem to find a single moderate, nor would their base vote for one.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
The problem with the left is they also keep putting forth the same people. The only difference they do more damage to the country.
So many of the same faces over and over. They can't seem to find a single moderate, nor would their base vote for one.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
The problem with the left is they also keep putting forth the same people. The only difference they do more damage to the country.
If you're just trying to get the thread locked, say so.
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Agreed 100% but we both know it isn't Rick Santorum. I'm embarrassed that backwards imbecile calls PA home.
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
Agreed. Clinton's not lying to get elected, she's stonewalling, covering up AND outright lying to stay out of jail.
this country if we elect a person like Hillary to the Presidency?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
If you have nothing to say about Rick Santorum jumping into the race or the GOP primary by extension why don't you just start a thread about Clinton and the Dems?
ISIS came about because they hate everything that we believe in and we stand for,” Santorum added. “I think the idea that we accept now that this tripe from the left that it’s our fault that ISIS exists -- go back to the thousand-year history of Muslim expansionism, and look at some of the horrible things that were done to spread radical Islam. That is not something that America had anything to do with.”
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Sen. Paul asserted GOP hawks “created” ISIS.
“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” he said. “They created these people.”
But Santorum, who touted his national security credentials, took issue with Paul’s comment.
“I would expect to hear that from maybe Bernie Sanders. I don't expect to hear that from someone running for the Republican nomination,” Santorum told Stephanopoulos.
But there's more to being an appealing candidate to me than that. She's a hawk, and I don't see much reason to believe that she isn't as plutocratic as any Republican candidate.
If you have nothing to say about Rick Santorum jumping into the race or the GOP primary by extension why don't you just start a thread about Clinton and the Dems?
Already did @ 12:21. Unfortunately for him he's gonna get caught up in the #'s crunch. As for a thread on Clinton & the Dems, no thanks I'll pass.
RE: ISIS was around before Obama became president Â
It doesn't take a genius to figure out who created ISIS. Also W signed an agreement to get the troops out. W also released the spokesperson for isis. ALBAGDADI. I butchered his name. It's going to be Jeb vs Hilary. They have the most money.
this country if we elect a person like Hillary to the Presidency?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
So in all of politics, the examples you have involving what you deem are the worst of the worst are Hillary and Bill Clinton?
And if/when she wins, the GOP can blame itself for a generation of crying wolf over the Clintons. Y'all may have a good case against her, but the messenger has no credibility.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
fringe candidate mistake. Talking to his base after the 'start gun' fires, whereupon one ought to start talking to the whole electorate.
If he had simply said, "Saddam would have killed all those ILS freaks before you could say 'spit' " that would have been taken for what it is, fairly irrelevant to what is happening in this moment, rhetorical and possibly true.
Instead, he was lazy or unfocussed in his rhetoric and will pay a political price for it. His party is paying a price, as the debate has not been as productive as it could have been.
Too bad, Paul might actually make a better president than candidate, as some types become more rational once in power, once they realize the real work does not always involve firing up a bunch of yips at town meetings it the mountain states. we may never find out.
Would Jindal start a (get the u.s. into) ground war in iraq? The electorate would certainly want specifics on that as well.
None of this gives a pass to the current administrations lack of tactical vision, insight or willingness to use certain resources.
one thing about any fringe candidate, left or right Â
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
Link - ( New Window )
I saw something recently that had her slipping in swing states with candidates like Walker and Bush beating her in their states.
I still can't believe that people would support her when she and Bill have basically put the Presidency up for sale, and I'm not talking about the Lincoln Bedroom. There is still time to get a viable Dem candidate. You can laugh at the Republican candidates, but sticking with Hilary is just giving up.
the Iraq War. She owns it, just as much as John Kerry and George Bush... It's hillarious that people talk crap about the war and the strawman argument about WMD, but won't acknowledge her complicancy.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
just there are very few cases of politicians having such a dubious track record BEFORE they take office.
I suppose you could argue someone like Marion Barry, although I don't know if drug use and corruption are the same (at this point, I'd rather have a druggie than a conniver) Maybe Alcee Hastings?
And if/when she wins, the GOP can blame itself for a generation of crying wolf over the Clintons. Y'all may have a good case against her, but the messenger has no credibility.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
What messenger? The Press should be the messenger and so far the NYT and WaPo have done a somewhat decent job on the Foundations issues. But when you have Clinton Attack Dogs IN the media, like Stephanopolous, it makes it a bit difficult to get unbiased coverage.
We'll see what happens when she has to debate or answer questions. It seems the more the public sees of her, the less they like her. And for good reason.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
And people putting stock in polls this far out
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 4:59 pm : link : reply
is LOL worthy.
Waaaaay too early. The best thing that can come-out of the 2016 election is that the American public finally wakes-up and realizes that the political process has jumped the shark and is in real danger of rolling back our liberty. These clowns have us fighting over stupid boob-bait arguments about race, gender and sexual orientation while they fill their pockets.
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
No one really knows what HRC believes in. She and her husband believe in getting as much money for themselves and they don't care how they do it.
Are you for selling our uranium to Russia to possibly sell to Iran? Are you for countries like Qatar? Are you for not putting Boko Harum on the terrorist watch list because you took money from Nigeria and they don't want to look bad?
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
Well that's what I mean. By then it will be too late to get another candidate. She fell apart in 2008, so she may do that once again.
RE: And people putting stock in polls this far out Â
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
Wow! Personal biases + factual inaccuracies = this post!
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
Hillary Jones would be the subject of a DOJ investigation.
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
Hillary Jones would be the subject of a DOJ investigation.
wants to invest their time going after Hilary rather than tell people like me how they plan to make my life better, knock yourselves out. I have hopes for John Kachich but he will never get the nomination because he makes too much sense. He's not a flamethrower but a guy who gets it, given the choice I'd vote for Kachich over Hilary but you guys will never give me that option
HRC hate out in full force. Love it.
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 5:26 pm : link : reply
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of other would too.
If she wasn't given months to clean up her emails, we would have found something. I am not necessarily calling her a criminal.... but if you don't think she is a liar and Anda backstabber... then you don't know hillary.
0 people. Whack away,it's probably cathartic, but people just do not care. How about becoming a party of ideas? Nah, go after Hilary, at least you'll feel bettet
Walker strikes me as the most formidable candidate and a good politician (I dont know much about Kasich, so he may be better). Loved on the far right but without a ruined national reputation like a Cruz. His "bad rap" is the union stuff, but I dont think a lot of Americans are voting on union issues, and I think public sector unions in particular dont have a ton of public support.
Now he's never been thru the presidential crucible, and winning a governorship is nothing like a presidential election. But he's got the hallmarks of a guy who could win.
They didn't declare. She just said they were broke and in debt when they left the white house. The article I read was from last year, not that they declared.
They didn't declare. She just said they were broke and in debt when they left the white house. The article I read was from last year, not that they declared.
Just my hillary hate coming out. My mistake. Link - ( New Window )
No problem. I'm not a big Hillary fan myself, but we should stay factual. It will be an interesting election season.
the Iraq War. She owns it, just as much as John Kerry and George Bush... It's hillarious that people talk crap about the war and the strawman argument about WMD, but won't acknowledge her complicancy.
If you read the thread and the topic you're replying to, your post makes no sense.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
The issues with the criticisms of Hillary are twofold... Â
first, she has umpteen lapdogs in the press, dating back to her husband's tenure. It is flat-out absurd the number of lies, half-truths, obfuscations and essential "fuck you"s she has given the press for the whole of her public life and they eat it up.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it. Â
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
Walker strikes me as the most formidable candidate and a good politician (I dont know much about Kasich, so he may be better). Loved on the far right but without a ruined national reputation like a Cruz. His "bad rap" is the union stuff, but I dont think a lot of Americans are voting on union issues, and I think public sector unions in particular dont have a ton of public support.
Now he's never been thru the presidential crucible, and winning a governorship is nothing like a presidential election. But he's got the hallmarks of a guy who could win.
He went through 3 hellish elections and a recall where the Dems and their union arm threw everything they could at him. And he beat them every time. I'd say he's been battle tested.
RE: The issues with the criticisms of Hillary are twofold... Â
first, she has umpteen lapdogs in the press, dating back to her husband's tenure. It is flat-out absurd the number of lies, half-truths, obfuscations and essential "fuck you"s she has given the press for the whole of her public life and they eat it up.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
Agree on the 2nd point, but I dont agree about the press. Last time she ran for office was 2008, and here competitor (Obama) was the media darling. The Clintons got horrendous press treatment when Bill was president. Horrendous. The media rabidly chased every non-story. I heard a bunch of shit about "the NY Times isnt covering X" and then you look at the NY Times and it's getting coverage.
I think the bigger problem with the Hillary criticism is that everytime someone asks "what is the terrible thing(s) she did" you get some meta analysis about how terrible a person she is (liar, user of people etc) without content. Or a shibboleth is used as a stand in for an actual explanation -- e.g. you dont need to tell me what Clinton did that was so horrible re Benghazi, because Benghazi!
RE: RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it. Â
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
RE: RE: The issues with the criticisms of Hillary are twofold... Â
first, she has umpteen lapdogs in the press, dating back to her husband's tenure. It is flat-out absurd the number of lies, half-truths, obfuscations and essential "fuck you"s she has given the press for the whole of her public life and they eat it up.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
Agree on the 2nd point, but I dont agree about the press. Last time she ran for office was 2008, and here competitor (Obama) was the media darling. The Clintons got horrendous press treatment when Bill was president. Horrendous. The media rabidly chased every non-story. I heard a bunch of shit about "the NY Times isnt covering X" and then you look at the NY Times and it's getting coverage.
I think the bigger problem with the Hillary criticism is that everytime someone asks "what is the terrible thing(s) she did" you get some meta analysis about how terrible a person she is (liar, user of people etc) without content. Or a shibboleth is used as a stand in for an actual explanation -- e.g. you dont need to tell me what Clinton did that was so horrible re Benghazi, because Benghazi!
Excellent point, the really amazing thing is I don't know of any other candidate who has been subjected to as many investigations as the Clinton's, with so little wrongdoing found.. We are talking at least over 100M spent over the years, and all the power of the FBI and other investigative branches of Govt to try to find something. It really is a miracle that nothing of substance other then a dress with a bit of splooge on it has been the sum total of all that energy, time, and money spent
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
Between the Vince a Foster folks of 15 years ago and Deej's carte Blanche approach.
Just based on what s been reported by those willing to report and that now includes the NYT and the WPost, there is certainly more to warrant an investigation than say Bruno and Silver for New shorter and Blago for Midwesterners. We know that her email address was improper and if that was her only address and single device, which she said but which we already know which was a lie, that the same issue arises as got Petreaus indicted or charged or whatever it was for him. We know that emails were picked through before being turned over to the govt...that doesn't raise legit questions? We know that she and he husband we getting paid tons either directly or funneled through their charity by foreign govts, while business was being done and some with favorable disposition to those entities. there's more...
At the least to say there is no investigation ninto Cesar's is to say that govt corruption or suspicion of govt corruption should *never* be investigated.
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
I bet Vince Foster was somehow involved too in this nefarious cover-up.
Im glad you can make a sarcastic joke about the loss of American lives, especially when they requested help and were ultimately denied by who? Riiiiight, but we're just "haters out in full force".
Im glad you can make a sarcastic joke about the loss of American lives, especially when they requested help and were ultimately denied by who? Riiiiight, but we're just "haters out in full force".
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
I'm "phased" by the spin that equates the Secretary of State conducting business that references classified materials and state secrets on a hackable private server to a Governor using a personal email address. The latter is regrettable, the former is deeply troubling.
RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it. Â
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
I bet Vince Foster was somehow involved too in this nefarious cover-up.
I can only assume that you approve of a Dept of State official keeping their emails on a private server and not being subject to the laws that every other person in the US is? And that if a Republican did it, you'd be okay with it.
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
She shouldn't have deleted them, especially if she knew she was going to run for president. She should have stayed away from the Clinton Foundation, which has done a lot of good in the world regardless of their recent controversies.
She's not perfect. But she's not a criminal either.
RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help? Â
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it. Â
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
I never said she's a criminal. But simply not being a criminal doesn't make you fit to be the CiC. Can you honestly tell me the thousands of deleted emails, donor scandals, the conflicts of interest regarding the Foundation...none of it makes you raise an eyebrow? It doesn't make your Impropriety Meter jump the slightest bit? She's dishonest and evasive regarding a plethora of issues. Is that in itself criminal? No. But it sure as he'll isn't the qualities I'd want in a president.
I'm sorry, but if you can just ignore all of that and say "yup, she got my vote" then you're a sheep.
RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help? Â
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
I don't agree how she handled the emails or her involvement with the Clinton Foundation. Her comment about being 'dead broke' after leaving the WH was LOL worthy. She's not a good politician; she doesn't have Bill's charisma, Obama's coolness, etc.
But I agree with her on the issues. I'm electing a president, not a pope. Her husband fell into a scandal, fake or not, everyday between 1/20/93-1/20/01 & his presidency was a complete success.
RE: RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help? Â
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
You are laughable. There was never a full investigation. Documents have not been handed over. Obviously any emails Clinton had have not been. This is the MO, Say 'nothing has been found' while nothing has been handed over.
Again, if you are satisfied with this, then you are the problem, not the Clinton's of the world.
RE: I don't agree with how she handled the emails buford Â
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
RE: RE: RE: Oh, so now HRC turned down request for help? Â
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't know what there, but to be fair it's coming out that part of the reason there may have been no smoking gun found..,not saying one exists...and why there is still need to investigate...is precisely because the correspondence was kept off govt servers and kept hidden and then selectively and grudgingly parsed out..I find it hard to complain that it's all been investigated and why does it continue when the information gets withheld from the investigative body. That's like saying the police should all go home if the suspect says "I didn't do it".
In comment 12303203 sphinx said:Quote:but Jeb Bush's emails don't seem to phase anyone.
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Why not?
Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
& I don't agree with the premise the media is pro-Clinton Â
In '08, they were totally in the tank for Obama. Even I admit that. She gets a lot of heat from the press. And if she didn't, don't you think she'd be fond of the media? Hillary hates the media.
George Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton aide. To his fault, he should have disclosed during that interview with the author of 'Clinton Cash' that he gave $ to the Clinton Foundation. He messed up there. But in the days after, I heard few mentions of the fact that that author had to make 8 or 9 significant revisions to his book because they were inaccurate.
RE: RE: I don't agree with how she handled the emails buford Â
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Would disagree that bills presidency was a complete success. I took classes that broke down a lot of his mistakes and how it affected the nation. I can agree he was a good president, but he did a lot of wrong too.
For her to ask for State to release them quickly when the emails that State has are the ones that she gave them in the first place *after* picking through them and removing ones she didn't want to have released or in State's possession. I would want those emails released too if I were her.
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
this notion that Clinton's presidency was a smashing success Â
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
She deleted them because she is hiding things about the Foundation and possibly Benghazi. Does anyone honestly believe that there were no emails on this? She and her staff used that server. And her staff were paid by the foundation as well. It's probably as bad or worse than the FIFA scandal, but that gets more press.
& I'm not running around telling everyone to vote for Hillary Â
I don't have that type of enthusiasm for her that I did in '08 for Obama. Again, barring a complete collapse, she's going to be the nominee & I will vote for her, even if I have to hold my nose.
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Can you honestly tell me of any candidate out there who could go through what they have had to endure and tyhem not find anything? You have had virtually every single investigative entity in our country look into them, you have had millions on top of millions spent for this. you have had investigations change course multiple times when they can't get them on something. Any person in this country would have some shit come out on them with that kind of scrutiny. So to say she is un-electable because we should hold someone to a higher level (seriously, have you seen who the fuck is in the Senate and the House?) I challenge you to tell me who that could be if they were put through the same test.
Now with that said i will agree that she seems to sure bring a boatload of it on herself. To not be 100% above board with regards to some of her actions AFTER all the investigations is stupid on her part. That would be the aspect that makes me hestitate
and you wonder why you'll never win a National Election in your lifetime's. I love it, keep dunking the Hilary scandal kool-aid until you start puking over all each other
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
The thing that gets me is that there's enough to be at least wary, and what there is is likely enough to have investigations going into her presidency. So that's controversial and angst and causes huge national friction..like during Bill's time. Or, it looks like there's something there but dems win the Senate and quash asking, which looks political which creates angst and causes huge national friction. And you know all those *before* you make the choice to have her be President. If I'm running the democrats, why would I put us in that position in the first place? I'm begging people to present themselves as alternatives.
You speak with such certainty that she's hiding things. Â
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
Yes, as long as they haven't done something criminally. In that case, obviously I could not support them. I'd probably just sit the election out.
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Gene 1, me 0. I look forward to evening the score in the months ahead.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: HRC's emails seem to be a big item Â
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
The 'rules' were Florida law. Link - ( New Window )
Fine, Bush should be disqualified from being President. Thanks, I would love for him to go away anyway.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: HRC hate out in full force. Love it. Â
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
I was offline for a while but reading through this since I left, i think Bill L has done a good job in responding to why I believe an investigation is needed.
And I have a pair thanks. Maybe you ought to learn some maturity? Self control? The ability to contribute to a conversation like an adult?
Na, instead let's compare politics to war, tell people to grow a pair, and mock the other side relentlessly because you're a cheerleader for your side....
pathetic
RE: RE: You speak with such certainty that she's hiding things. Â
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
So the Clintons are unusual in being 'political animals'? Uh, there's a dude on the other side who is running for the same office 'Poppy' & his older brother had. What do you call them? Of course they're political animals. Who would dispute that? All of these people are narcissistic individuals.
If I didn't like her on the issues, why would I support her? She's a Democrat. I'm a Democrat. We agree on pretty much everything. And yes, it is about keeping my party in power because I think their policies are the best for America & it's future. I'm not sure why that angers you so much. You're a Republican. You want your party in power because you believe in what they espouse.
Emails: Investigate it. Maybe Im downplaying it, but if proven then she violated FOIA. She's a fucking FOIA scofflaw. My experience as a civil litigator tells me that deleting emails is just about the dumbest way to attempt to destroy evidence, because (1) they're hard to kill, and more importantly (2) someone else fucking has them (because that's what an email is -- 2+ way communication).
Maybe I cut her too much slack, but the email thing strikes me as not a scandal. A mark against her, sure. But the undercurrent to me is that the Benghazi brigade are overblowing it because of the total failure of that witch hunt. Maybe I'd care more if (1) some of the deleted emails pop up and are incriminating, and/or (2) an aide flips and says Hillary demanded that all the emails be deleted (because Im not even sure that Grandma Hill was in on the decision to delete; my mother still cant print after 20 years).
Donor "Scandal" / conflicts of interest: This is a MUCH easier call for me. You explained this to me last time. All you have is the appearance of impropriety. A charity her husband runs (and now she helps run) took money from some feriners while people connected to those feriners had business before state, and therefore ... she's crooked.
My problem with this is Politician X took money from a source who had business before him = corrupt effectively criminalizes the entire US political system. It's not that it happens every day once or twice -- it's that it is effectively the system we have. I wish it were not so, but alas it is. The Supreme Court has essentially said it's protected by the first amendment. And those are direct donations to political campaigns/PACs! But Clinton does it, with the money to a charity, and it's the height of corruption. Fucking nonsense.
---
Is Hillary's nose clean as the driven snow, in that there are no eyebrow raisers? No. But she and her husband have been investigated to hell, and nothing comes close to the shit that the last three two-term GOP presidents have pulled (Iraq, Iran-Contra, Watergate). I mean, any republican kvetching about whether we can trust Hillary better be spitting on the grave of Saint Reagan.
will give the "State" job to Michelle for a few years to build up some foreign policy creds so she can run for POTUS in 2024? Serious responses only, please.
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
As i said, she has not been the smartest with regards to that which is where i have my doubts about her. Whether anything she did was illegal we will see, but i bet nothing come from it.
At this point i would not be shocked to see Clinton investigation fatigue set in and actually give a bump for her
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
Please tell me one candidate running for the presidency that is not a "political animal"?
"so what, the other guys did worse..." That's a shitty fucking rejoinder. It's probably untrue, but even if it was it's a pretty pathetic bar to surmount if all we ask of someone is that prior to taking office their scandals be arguably lesser in magnitude than their predecessors.
will give the "State" job to Michelle for a few years to build up some foreign policy creds so she can run for POTUS in 2024? Serious responses only, please.
Maybe not a cabinet job, but Michelle isnt going away. Just my opinion though.
Calm down before you have a stroke. You may agree or disagree with the others on this thread, but everyone but you is trying to have a real coversation.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: You speak with such certainty that she's hiding things. Â
So the Clintons are unusual in being 'political animals'? Uh, there's a dude on the other side who is running for the same office 'Poppy' & his older brother had. What do you call them? Of course they're political animals. Who would dispute that? All of these people are narcissistic individuals.
If I didn't like her on the issues, why would I support her? She's a Democrat. I'm a Democrat. We agree on pretty much everything. And yes, it is about keeping my party in power because I think their policies are the best for America & it's future. I'm not sure why that angers you so much. You're a Republican. You want your party in power because you believe in what they espouse.
No, they aren't unusual. Which makes it silly for anyone to complain about politics when referring to any investigation in Benghazi or anything regarding the Clintons or any Democrat.
And as I said, the issues don't matter, not to Hillary anyway. Didn't she pay women less than men on her staff? Wasn't she against gay marriage and illegal Immigrants just a few years ago? Now she's about income inequality while crying about being 'dead broke' days before she signed a multi million dollar advance for a book?
She will do nothing for those issue, it's just a ploy to get elected. Anyone who falls for it is just being played. Do you also vote for Nancy Pelosi every 2 years too?
I really don't consider myself a Republican and I don't like many Republicans. If Clinton as an R I sure as hell would not vote for her.
will give the "State" job to Michelle for a few years to build up some foreign policy creds so she can run for POTUS in 2024? Serious responses only, please.
The Clinton's and the Obama's hate each other. But maybe they've made another pack to support each other. But don't forget, it might be Chelsea's turn soon! I heard that she would be the 'official First Lady', If Clinton is elected so Bill doesn't have to waste his time picking out china.
was a few months ago she ripped GOP's for super PACs, and now in the last month she got at least 2 super PACs to back her campaign.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
To add some context to her stance ... But on her first full day of campaigning, during a roundtable at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa on Tuesday, Clinton stressed the need to curb the role of money in politics. "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," she said.
Clinton's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, suggested Clinton's stance isn't hypocrisy - it's just smart strategy, given the current the current structure of campaign finance laws.
"Here's what Hillary Clinton doesn't do - unilaterally disarm," Palmieri told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday. "So as long as the rules are what the rules are, she is going to work hard to raise as much money as she needs to wage an effective campaign." Link - ( New Window )
Again, how does that make her unlike most politicians? I'm not sure what the critique there is. I don't have a problem with politicians changing their positions; I'm more concerned about them sticking to their original beliefs in spite of whatever developments might occur & facts that come to light.
And I disagree that she won't do anything on those issues. She'll try. I don't know how successful she'll be with, at a minimum, a Republican House.
She's a politician, and not necessarily a great one either. But as I've said ad nauseum, she's 98.5% likely of being the Democratic nominee next November.
was a few months ago she ripped GOP's for super PACs, and now in the last month she got at least 2 super PACs to back her campaign.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
To add some context to her stance ...
But on her first full day of campaigning, during a roundtable at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa on Tuesday, Clinton stressed the need to curb the role of money in politics. "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," she said.
Clinton's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, suggested Clinton's stance isn't hypocrisy - it's just smart strategy, given the current the current structure of campaign finance laws.
"Here's what Hillary Clinton doesn't do - unilaterally disarm," Palmieri told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday. "So as long as the rules are what the rules are, she is going to work hard to raise as much money as she needs to wage an effective campaign." Link - ( New Window )
Oh please, are you really falling for that? She knows damn well there will be no Constitutional Amendment, it's already gone to the SC. It's just more fodder for the low information voters. Citizens United! YEAH! Hilary will get rid of it!!! Morons.
Is there any Democrat who would be unacceptable? In Virginia we had the Sophie's Choice of gubernatorial elections a couple years ago. I despise Terry McAuliffe, he's one of the politicians I like the least not just in Virginia but nationwide. But his opponent was just enough of a shithead I couldn't bring myself to vote for him even though in broad and general terms his policy prescriptions would have been more congenial to me.
& I'm glad she said she would appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn that decision.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
& I'm glad she said she would appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn that decision.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
You really believe all the crap she dishes out? So sad.
& yes, I know he's buddy buddy with the Clintons. He also struck me as a slick car salesman type.
Listen, I wish Warren would run. I wish Gillibrand would run. I wish Sharrod Brown would run. But, as far as I can see, they're not. It's Hillary, Bernie (who I love & think is totally ignored by the national media; the dude rules social media), & Martin O'Malley.
Bernie's too out there, O'Malley is too blah, & it's just Hillary.
Is there any Democrat who would be unacceptable? In Virginia we had the Sophie's Choice of gubernatorial elections a couple years ago. I despise Terry McAuliffe, he's one of the politicians I like the least not just in Virginia but nationwide. But his opponent was just enough of a shithead I couldn't bring myself to vote for him even though in broad and general terms his policy prescriptions would have been more congenial to me.
John Kerry already ran.
Need to ask a general question about the electoral college Â
is it time to change it and give a percentage of the electoral votes to both candidates for whatever percentage they receive? So if Hillary got 60% of PA vote, she would get that percentage of the electoral votes?
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
& I'm glad she said she would appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn that decision.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
You really believe all the crap she dishes out? So sad.
She would appoint justices who align with her worldview, which would be against the court's original decision. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you implying she would appoint justices who would uphold the decision? If you do, I think you're completely lost.
is it time to change it and give a percentage of the electoral votes to both candidates for whatever percentage they receive? So if Hillary got 60% of PA vote, she would get that percentage of the electoral votes?
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
It should be explored. Just like open primaries, publicly funded campaigns, shorter campaigns, and maybe even getting rid the TV ads and forcing the electorate to read up on people rather than watch cheap shots slung back and forth.
I'd also look into outlawing lobbying at the federal level and relegating it to the states and localities.
But none of that will happen until we tell both parties to fuck off in some fashion.
RE: Need to ask a general question about the electoral college Â
is it time to change it and give a percentage of the electoral votes to both candidates for whatever percentage they receive? So if Hillary got 60% of PA vote, she would get that percentage of the electoral votes?
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
Dep, that's not a bad idea. I would like to scrap it all together, though I realize that would mean each candidate would just visit California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc.
I also would like to get rid of Iowa & NH holding the first caucus/primary. They are not representative of the country at all demographically.
RE: RE: Need to ask a general question about the electoral college Â
is it time to change it and give a percentage of the electoral votes to both candidates for whatever percentage they receive? So if Hillary got 60% of PA vote, she would get that percentage of the electoral votes?
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
Dep, that's not a bad idea. I would like to scrap it all together, though I realize that would mean each candidate would just visit California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc.
I also would like to get rid of Iowa & NH holding the first caucus/primary. They are not representative of the country at all demographically.
Well at least GOPs will go to CA, NY, PA,etc... And Dems will go to midwest states and TX (even texas may change as soon as 2020.)
I think the TV idea is a great one you rpesented, but I would still be a huge advocate of TV debates. And more no holds bar debates. These moderate debates prove nothing other than fluff.
I think the TV idea is a great one you rpesented, but I would still be a huge advocate of TV debates. And more no holds bar debates. These moderate debates prove nothing other than fluff.
I'd never get rid of televised debates. I'd add a fuck ton more. Fuck the speeches and rallys. I wanna see the fucks debate policy till they can't fucking speak.
"so what, the other guys did worse..." That's a shitty fucking rejoinder. It's probably untrue, but even if it was it's a pretty pathetic bar to surmount if all we ask of someone is that prior to taking office their scandals be arguably lesser in magnitude than their predecessors.
Is this a response to me? Are you kidding? My "rejoinder" is the first 4 paragraphs of my post, which you ignore completely to mischaracterize the 5th paragraph. I guess you have no thoughtful response.
My point in the 5th paragraph was probably not worth making, but it's that Bill's presidency was investigated to hell, and the best anyone got him on was lying about marital infidelity. Yet GOPers go on and on like it was the end of times when Crooked Arkansas Bill was running things. The dishonesty out of Nixon, Reagan, and GWB's administrations on the other hand went to affairs of state. It's many, many times worse.
I think the electoral college in general is outdated. Â
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
Well they tried and still are trying to delegitimize the Obama Â
Presidency, is it a surprise that a Clinton Presidency wouldn't be delegitimized also? I mean how can she be legit with a 100 scandals hanging over her head?
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
LOL...okay so tell me what has been "revealed" that meets that qualifier of yours?
RE: RE: I think the electoral college in general is outdated. Â
Can't see a reason why presidential elections wouldn't be better decided by the popular vote.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
You're right. I think the EC is outdated. Maybe made sense in an era where sectarian lines were drawn at the state level -- MA, VA, PA, and NY could team up. That's not a material concern these days.
The EC effectively disenfranchises most voters. As a NYer my presidential vote has never once mattered. The battle for the presidency is fought over a few swing states. Over the years the states may move, but in any election it is really just 3-8 swing states that really matter. And so politicians promise things that appeal to the voters in those states, while ignoring the people of NY, CA, TX, WY, MT etc.
In comment 12303457
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President. [/quote]
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce.
In comment 12303457
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce. [/quote]
You should care about the donor scandal. It's a giant fuck you to the electorate. It is one big giant appearance of impropriety. I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils plenty of times, but let's be up front and admit that's the issue here. That's what I'll do for a majority of the Republicans in the field (a couple I could grow to like and a couple would make me vote write-in). Independently Hillary has little more to recommend her than the sense of inevitability she's had since '06 or so.
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
The best is that now since there is nothing tangible, its all about the appearance of wrongdoing as specified by her political opponents, that disqualifies her. That completely ignores the fact that no other politician has had the staggering amount of investigations after investigations (some nonsensical) they have had to endure that have amounted to nothing.
The fact that it is unprecedented how much money and power was lined up against them is completely ignored as a factor, and that any politician would have had some shit to deal with from that kind of scrutiny
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Fox News announced Thursday that the debate competitors would be determined by an average of the last five major national polls of the GOP race. The top 10 competitors will be allowed to debate, and the field could potentially expand to 11 if there's a tie for 10th. [...]
Santorum is currently near the bottom of the field in polls, along with other declared or potential contenders like former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
May 22, 2015 ... - ( New Window )
Thy Kingdom Come
Thy Will be Done
Give us on this Day
Our Daily Political Thread
and Protect me from Posting
Upon It
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
+1
While the strong base isn't going to vote for anyone not in their party, those left-center Democrats or right-center Republicans can be swayed to vote for the other guy if the candidate can hit the right notes. And I'm just not seeing any of those candidates on the right.
Again, the problem is that any of those right-center guys aren't likely to get the nomination, because the base says that they aren't conservative enough (Democrats are doing this too, with trying to implore Warren to run, or getting excited about Sanders, while losing enthusiasm for Clinton because she's not liberal enough).
When it comes time to vote in the primary, people are looking for someone who is conservative/liberal enough but not so bat-shit crazy liberal/conservative that they could never compete in a general election. In 2012, that's how we got Mitt Romney, a guy who changed his position so often to make both sides happy, and suddenly you think he must be right-center, while who knows what we really had in him.
But the GOP side really seems overrun with people who are running (1) in order to improve/maintain a personal brand for post-primary reasons (e.g. Fox gig or to be a "player" in the party/Senate) or (2) at the behest of the campaign-industrial complex, whereby many 2nd and 3rd tier campaigns are run so as to enrich campaign operatives.
Most of the big Tea Party organizations are now just a racket to separate rank and file conservatives from their money. The draft Ben Carson PAC has raised $15 million ... but has no affiliation with Dr. C and its leader has been barred by Carson's camp from getting his photo with the doctor (since it would be used to trick people into giving more).
I mean we already have essentially no difference in choice with a One party system controlling elections, at least one party is throwing out the illusion that there are more choices available to win the nomination. Next step would be to actually allow 3rd parties with real substantial differences into the debate. Here's to hoping that the GOP goes the way of the Whig's and that becomes more likely.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
Officially in the Race
Ben Carson: Serious
Ted Cruz: Ulterior Motive
Carly Fiorina: Not Sure
Mike Huckabee: Ulterior Motive
Rand Paul: Serious
Marco Rubio: Not Sure
Rick Santorum: Ulterior Motive
Announcement Pending
Lindsey Graham: Not Sure
George Pataki: Serious
Rick Perry: Serious, I think
Exploring a Candidacy
Jeb Bush: Serious
Chris Christie: Serious
Bobby Jindal: Ulterior Motive
John Kasick: Ulterior Motive
Donald Trump: Ulterior Motive
Scott Walker: Serious
Maybe, Maybe not
Bob Ehrlich: Ulterior Motive
Jim Gilmore: Ulterior Motive
Peter King: Ulterior Motive
It's not his money. His job is running for stuff and losing. It's the money of the poor suckers he convinces to contribute to his campaign.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
How many of these guys seriously believe they are contenders?
Bramton1 : 12:21 pm : link : reply
If we discussed previously that some of these guys are probably running just for the exposure, or because they want to the vice president job, etc. Who do you think is a serious candidate, or who do you think has another reason?
Officially in the Race
Ben Carson: Serious Foot in Mouth Moments T/Come
Ted Cruz: May Think He Can Win
Carly Fiorina: Nice Lady, no Chance
Mike Huckabee: Huckster Runs radio show from back of his oldsmobile
Rand Paul: Seriously Right Wing
Marco Rubio: Could . Go . All . The . Way
Rick Santorum: One hit wonder?
Announcement Pending
Lindsey Graham: Baby Boomers - please just go away already
George Pataki: Seriously Deluded
Rick Perry: Serious, He Thinks, He Really Thinks he is damn serious and seriously does think he is.
Exploring a Candidacy
Jeb Bush: Serious Douchebag
Chris Christie: Seriously Fat
Bobby Jindal: Decent Candidate
John Kasick: Who In Fucking Hell is John Fucking Kasic?
Donald Trump: Façade Promoter
Scott Walker: Seriously, who?
Maybe, Maybe not
Bob Ehrlich: Never Heard of him
Jim Gilmore: Never Heard of him
Peter King: Is a Law and Order Republican even a true Conservative at all?
- Filmgiant
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Vote for Bernie. I know he has his faults but seriously who in their right mind would vote for Hillary? She is the most dishonest person in America.
Quote:
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
They're on http://www.newsmax.com/
While that would indeed be hilariously tone deaf, the less that song is accidentally audible to my ears the better.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Basically, the presidential version of the last NYC mayoral election.
You should save your vote then. By that logic you're saying Hillary IS viable. Now that's laughable. No, actually it's scary.
at least, with outsiders such as Paul and Sanders, you could have actual debate.
I mean, it would be hard to vote for Paul due to his (is this his position?) isolationism,
and Sanders is a self deluded communist, so...yeah...but, a debate would be worth watching since they would break down the prevailing mind lock on varied subjects.
also- he is not as anti gay marriage (I am for gay marriage, what the hell, until we repeal the state intrusions on family, it needs to be equal) as one would think. its more nuanced than that.
Rand is not nearly as wacked out, nor as huckster-ish as his father.
Um, no. Her resume is filled of using, abusing, and lying.
it is so funny!
as I said before - this plays exactly into Jeb Bush's hands
Jeb wants so many republican clowns running they will dilute the crazy republican tea party vote among different candidates so that low double digits in early primaries will give Jeb front runner status.
By the time Republicans figure out what is going on Jeb will have sewn up the nomination.
the media only makes money if the election is a horse race and Hillary is so far out in front of all these republican candidates that
Trust me Hillary will get completely trashed by the media from now until election day .
I know, the above person doesn't exist.
Quote:
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
The problem with the left is they also keep putting forth the same people. The only difference they do more damage to the country.
It is always interesting times.
Quote:
So many of the same faces over and over. They can't seem to find a single moderate, nor would their base vote for one.
It's crazy how polarized this country is. We really need someone who can pull both sides together, I just don't think there is anyone who is strong enough to do so.
The problem with the left is they also keep putting forth the same people. The only difference they do more damage to the country.
If you're just trying to get the thread locked, say so.
Quote:
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
Link - ( New Window )
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Agreed 100% but we both know it isn't Rick Santorum. I'm embarrassed that backwards imbecile calls PA home.
Quote:
In comment 12302557 Matt M. said:
Quote:
I would have voted for Hillary no matter what. Now, it will simply be because there just doesn't seem to be any viable opponent either from within her party or from the other party. The Republican parade of candidates, thus far, is laughable. Is there some dark horse they are holding back for right now? And there really isn't much better competition from the rest of the Democrat pack.
All politicians need to lie at times. However not all politicians are pathological liars. I said that here about her here over 10 years and she has never disappointed.
I think there's a huge difference. This is not political lying that we are talking about here. We are talking about actual real world lying, Petreaus rule-breaking, evidence destruction, influence peddling and perhaps even bribery. And that's just what we know now without a full investigation or retrieving (perhaps permanently) communications.
Honestly feel like this is a litmus test for voters and how they prioritize integrity versus party. I think it would be akin to Repubs having to decide to vote for Spiro Agnew had her not resigned and rather, had run versus carter instead of Ford.
Agreed. Clinton's not lying to get elected, she's stonewalling, covering up AND outright lying to stay out of jail.
Quote:
That is a fair stance about Hillary at this point. But, the scary part is, she still may very well be the best candidate out there right now.
Um, no. Her resume is filled of using, abusing, and lying.
Quote:
In comment 12302677 Matt M. said:
Quote:
That is a fair stance about Hillary at this point. But, the scary part is, she still may very well be the best candidate out there right now.
Um, no. Her resume is filled of using, abusing, and lying.
Based on what? What did she accomplish as Secretary of State?
Her 4 years as Secretary of States has more questions, doubts, and inaccuracies than any of recent future.
If her name was Hillary Jones, she would be laughed at by mainstream media for president.
And isnt it scary she has done things as controversial and worse than those 2? When your talked about in the same regards as them, yikes!
Thanks for the response, njpm!
Seriously, we does fucking everyone who responds to me insert a P in my screen name?
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
Quote:
No ulterior motive for Kasich. If he goes he's serious.
Thanks for the response, njpm!
Seriously, we does fucking everyone who responds to me insert a P in my screen name?
I'm glad you didn't take it personally.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Quote:
Sanders doesn't have a chance. He's a left-wing darling, but, (1) he's a self-described socialist, (2) he's far left, (3) he's created the illusion that he has no foreign policy plan, and (4) I don't think our country is ready to elect a Bernie to the top job.
Too late. There's a Bernie already in the White House. Except for the "illusion" part. There IS no foreign policy.
Tinfoil hat patrol in full force today.
On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”, Sen. Paul asserted GOP hawks “created” ISIS.
“ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately,” he said. “They created these people.”
But Santorum, who touted his national security credentials, took issue with Paul’s comment.
“I would expect to hear that from maybe Bernie Sanders. I don't expect to hear that from someone running for the Republican nomination,” Santorum told Stephanopoulos.
Link - ( New Window )
I think Jeb loves that he's in the race. Makes him look more reasonable and electable.
Didn't Mitt keep someone in the race last time to split the conservative vote, maybe Huckabee?
Already did @ 12:21. Unfortunately for him he's gonna get caught up in the #'s crunch. As for a thread on Clinton & the Dems, no thanks I'll pass.
Perhaps. But they appeared to be taking a sabbatical from 2008-2011.
That we will vote party lines over good judgment?
I can't think of a recent presidential candidate with a worse history of lying, manipulating the truth, or outright deceit, going back all the way to Whitewater than her.
I can think of people once they took office who had that kind of behavior, but before stepping into the position?
It will speak very loudly about either the stupidity of the public, or the insistence to vote on party or gender lines if she is elected.
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
If he had simply said, "Saddam would have killed all those ILS freaks before you could say 'spit' " that would have been taken for what it is, fairly irrelevant to what is happening in this moment, rhetorical and possibly true.
Instead, he was lazy or unfocussed in his rhetoric and will pay a political price for it. His party is paying a price, as the debate has not been as productive as it could have been.
Too bad, Paul might actually make a better president than candidate, as some types become more rational once in power, once they realize the real work does not always involve firing up a bunch of yips at town meetings it the mountain states. we may never find out.
Would Jindal start a (get the u.s. into) ground war in iraq? The electorate would certainly want specifics on that as well.
None of this gives a pass to the current administrations lack of tactical vision, insight or willingness to use certain resources.
which could be a good thing in terms of getting stuff done, or in terms of stepping away from [either parties] bullshit parts of the agendas.
Quote:
In comment 12302445 OC2.0 said:
Quote:
In comment 12302356 FatMan in Charlotte said:Quote:give Clinton the presidency by default, I'm going to be pissed.
she shouldn't even be allowed to run with all of the baggage hanging over her, but I really hop the Republicans find somebody who can at least compete and the Democrats find somebody who will knock her off.
Just read today that some polls have Walker ahead of her. Fwiw.
That's interesting. Can you supply a link to those polls?
RealClearPolitics average of polls has Hillary ahead of everyone. But given the current state of name recognition she'd be toast if she wasn't.
Link - ( New Window )
I saw something recently that had her slipping in swing states with candidates like Walker and Bush beating her in their states.
I still can't believe that people would support her when she and Bill have basically put the Presidency up for sale, and I'm not talking about the Lincoln Bedroom. There is still time to get a viable Dem candidate. You can laugh at the Republican candidates, but sticking with Hilary is just giving up.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
I suppose you could argue someone like Marion Barry, although I don't know if drug use and corruption are the same (at this point, I'd rather have a druggie than a conniver) Maybe Alcee Hastings?
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout. I dont think either party will make any nods or significant moderations to stake out the middle.
What messenger? The Press should be the messenger and so far the NYT and WaPo have done a somewhat decent job on the Foundations issues. But when you have Clinton Attack Dogs IN the media, like Stephanopolous, it makes it a bit difficult to get unbiased coverage.
We'll see what happens when she has to debate or answer questions. It seems the more the public sees of her, the less they like her. And for good reason.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Quote:
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
The Dems...maybe
HRC is in line with whoever's writing the checks.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 4:59 pm : link : reply
is LOL worthy.
Waaaaay too early. The best thing that can come-out of the 2016 election is that the American public finally wakes-up and realizes that the political process has jumped the shark and is in real danger of rolling back our liberty. These clowns have us fighting over stupid boob-bait arguments about race, gender and sexual orientation while they fill their pockets.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
No one really knows what HRC believes in. She and her husband believe in getting as much money for themselves and they don't care how they do it.
Are you for selling our uranium to Russia to possibly sell to Iran? Are you for countries like Qatar? Are you for not putting Boko Harum on the terrorist watch list because you took money from Nigeria and they don't want to look bad?
Quote:
In comment 12303016 Deej said:
Quote:
I do think that if Hillary is the Dem candidate that the election is going to be bad for the country. Given her presence and the likely hard right tack the GOP nominee will have to take to win, it will be an all out race to drive base turnout.
Conceding that it's very early in the process, I think that's exactly her strategy. Take as few questions as possible, lay out as few specifics as possible and rely on "get out the base" along with name recognition and party loyalty to get to 51%.
Lucky for her, there's no serious Dem candidates so she won't even have to answer real questions until the general election.
Well that's what I mean. By then it will be too late to get another candidate. She fell apart in 2008, so she may do that once again.
At this point in the 1992 election cycle Bush 41 had something like a 89% approval rating.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
You just said it was laughable to put stock in polls at this point. So how are you telling who could beat HRC. I think Rubio or Walker could beat her.
Quote:
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Quote:
RE: On the issuesMajority of Americans side with Democratic policies.
Today's "Democrat Party" is a coalition of people who feel disenfranchised. It's a giant pay-back scheme for support. The various coalitions don't have issues, they have causes. Their party promises them a seat at the table and uses that seat to force feed the agenda to Amercians. These policies are consistently voted down by the public (immigration, drug legalization, gay marriage, tax increases... etc), but they are legislatively pushed through the power of Government.
What?
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
Quote:
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
Quote:
In comment 12303052 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
HRC isn't perfect. And nor will be the Republican nominee.
She, and her party, are more in line with the majority of Americans than the Republicans.
Hillary 's choice go like this.
1. Herself
2. Herself
3. Herself.
Her only redeeming quality is that she is Is a bulldog. But she uses that to keep bill in line or to line her pockets. She used NY as her home to become senator to promote herself towards presidency, despite never living there. I am convinced there was a Behind the scenes deal made for her to become secretary of state (again she needed a title to promote herself for a 2016). A lot of her ideas as first lady failed. She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years. She is the least trusting candidate.
Like I said... hillary jones doesn't even run for this position.
Hillary Jones would be the subject of a DOJ investigation.
Haha!!!
SanFranNowNCGiantsFan : 5:26 pm : link : reply
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
...and you're not paying attention.
If she wasn't given months to clean up her emails, we would have found something. I am not necessarily calling her a criminal.... but if you don't think she is a liar and Anda backstabber... then you don't know hillary.
Hillary Clinton declared bankruptcy? Don't have a dog in this fight, but I never heard that.
Other side ain't much better to be sure but man, this shit is lame
Now he's never been thru the presidential crucible, and winning a governorship is nothing like a presidential election. But he's got the hallmarks of a guy who could win.
Quote:
She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years.
Hillary Clinton declared bankruptcy? Don't have a dog in this fight, but I never heard that.
They declared last year.
Quote:
In comment 12303075 dep026 said:
Quote:
She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years.
Hillary Clinton declared bankruptcy? Don't have a dog in this fight, but I never heard that.
They declared last year.
Who is "They" in that sentence?
Quote:
In comment 12303075 dep026 said:
Quote:
She declares bankruptcy despite Making over 36 million the last 2 years.
Hillary Clinton declared bankruptcy? Don't have a dog in this fight, but I never heard that.
They declared last year.
I would think that would have been reported as news. Can you link to a news report about it?
Just my hillary hate coming out. My mistake.
Link - ( New Window )
Just my hillary hate coming out. My mistake. Link - ( New Window )
No problem. I'm not a big Hillary fan myself, but we should stay factual. It will be an interesting election season.
If you read the thread and the topic you're replying to, your post makes no sense.
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
Now he's never been thru the presidential crucible, and winning a governorship is nothing like a presidential election. But he's got the hallmarks of a guy who could win.
He went through 3 hellish elections and a recall where the Dems and their union arm threw everything they could at him. And he beat them every time. I'd say he's been battle tested.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
Agree on the 2nd point, but I dont agree about the press. Last time she ran for office was 2008, and here competitor (Obama) was the media darling. The Clintons got horrendous press treatment when Bill was president. Horrendous. The media rabidly chased every non-story. I heard a bunch of shit about "the NY Times isnt covering X" and then you look at the NY Times and it's getting coverage.
I think the bigger problem with the Hillary criticism is that everytime someone asks "what is the terrible thing(s) she did" you get some meta analysis about how terrible a person she is (liar, user of people etc) without content. Or a shibboleth is used as a stand in for an actual explanation -- e.g. you dont need to tell me what Clinton did that was so horrible re Benghazi, because Benghazi!
Quote:
In comment 12303145 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
Quote:
first, she has umpteen lapdogs in the press, dating back to her husband's tenure. It is flat-out absurd the number of lies, half-truths, obfuscations and essential "fuck you"s she has given the press for the whole of her public life and they eat it up.
On the other hand, you have enough deranged nitwits on the right who can't hear "Hillary" without hearing "Vince Foster" and "body count" and umpteen John Birch-esque trigger words, and they make it plenty easy for aforementioned lapdogs to dismiss legitimate criticisms of Hillary as right wing noise.
Agree on the 2nd point, but I dont agree about the press. Last time she ran for office was 2008, and here competitor (Obama) was the media darling. The Clintons got horrendous press treatment when Bill was president. Horrendous. The media rabidly chased every non-story. I heard a bunch of shit about "the NY Times isnt covering X" and then you look at the NY Times and it's getting coverage.
I think the bigger problem with the Hillary criticism is that everytime someone asks "what is the terrible thing(s) she did" you get some meta analysis about how terrible a person she is (liar, user of people etc) without content. Or a shibboleth is used as a stand in for an actual explanation -- e.g. you dont need to tell me what Clinton did that was so horrible re Benghazi, because Benghazi!
Excellent point, the really amazing thing is I don't know of any other candidate who has been subjected to as many investigations as the Clinton's, with so little wrongdoing found.. We are talking at least over 100M spent over the years, and all the power of the FBI and other investigative branches of Govt to try to find something. It really is a miracle that nothing of substance other then a dress with a bit of splooge on it has been the sum total of all that energy, time, and money spent
Quote:
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
I bet Vince Foster was somehow involved too in this nefarious cover-up.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
Just based on what s been reported by those willing to report and that now includes the NYT and the WPost, there is certainly more to warrant an investigation than say Bruno and Silver for New shorter and Blago for Midwesterners. We know that her email address was improper and if that was her only address and single device, which she said but which we already know which was a lie, that the same issue arises as got Petreaus indicted or charged or whatever it was for him. We know that emails were picked through before being turned over to the govt...that doesn't raise legit questions? We know that she and he husband we getting paid tons either directly or funneled through their charity by foreign govts, while business was being done and some with favorable disposition to those entities. there's more...
At the least to say there is no investigation ninto Cesar's is to say that govt corruption or suspicion of govt corruption should *never* be investigated.
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
I bet Vince Foster was somehow involved too in this nefarious cover-up.
Im glad you can make a sarcastic joke about the loss of American lives, especially when they requested help and were ultimately denied by who? Riiiiight, but we're just "haters out in full force".
Can you expand on that?
But don't let those facts get in your way.
I'm "phased" by the spin that equates the Secretary of State conducting business that references classified materials and state secrets on a hackable private server to a Governor using a personal email address. The latter is regrettable, the former is deeply troubling.
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Let's start with obstruction of justice by deleting emails that were requested as part of the Special Investigation on Benghazi.
I bet Vince Foster was somehow involved too in this nefarious cover-up.
I can only assume that you approve of a Dept of State official keeping their emails on a private server and not being subject to the laws that every other person in the US is? And that if a Republican did it, you'd be okay with it.
My God, don't you have ANY principles?
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
She shouldn't have deleted them, especially if she knew she was going to run for president. She should have stayed away from the Clinton Foundation, which has done a lot of good in the world regardless of their recent controversies.
She's not perfect. But she's not a criminal either.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
Thank you sfgf, your cheerleading has near perfectly outlined the problems posed by the average voter. Despite all the unanswered questions, shady business dealings, and complete and utter lack of transparency you're waving your pom poms with more vigor than a 12 year old who just discovered his dick. How can you be confident in this woman when she basically tells any press with the balls to ask about Benghazi or the shady dealings of the Foundation to f*ck off? Not only are you confident in her, you mock those who do question her. There's so much we don't know, and that she refuses to talk about, that the fact she's the front runner would be a joke if we weren't talking about making her the leader of the free world.
That's blind partisanship at its finest. Hell, it's pushing Cult of Personality. And before you claim I'm a tinfoil wearing right wing loon, know that my voting record, with a few exceptions, leans heavily Democrat.
What crimes did she commit? If you can tell me, I will step aside. I'm just waiting to hear, because people are implying she's a criminal and yet cannot say what laws she broke.
I'm a Democrat. I don't hide that. I'm not a holier than thou, float above the fray type of guy. She's going to be the nominee. I'm going to vote for her. If that bothers you, so be it.
I never said she's a criminal. But simply not being a criminal doesn't make you fit to be the CiC. Can you honestly tell me the thousands of deleted emails, donor scandals, the conflicts of interest regarding the Foundation...none of it makes you raise an eyebrow? It doesn't make your Impropriety Meter jump the slightest bit? She's dishonest and evasive regarding a plethora of issues. Is that in itself criminal? No. But it sure as he'll isn't the qualities I'd want in a president.
I'm sorry, but if you can just ignore all of that and say "yup, she got my vote" then you're a sheep.
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
But I agree with her on the issues. I'm electing a president, not a pope. Her husband fell into a scandal, fake or not, everyday between 1/20/93-1/20/01 & his presidency was a complete success.
Quote:
In comment 12303211 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
You are laughable. There was never a full investigation. Documents have not been handed over. Obviously any emails Clinton had have not been. This is the MO, Say 'nothing has been found' while nothing has been handed over.
Again, if you are satisfied with this, then you are the problem, not the Clinton's of the world.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
Quote:
In comment 12303211 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
Even though Christopher Stevens refused extra security in August of '12 & it was the Republican House starting in January 2011 that cut funding for embassy security.
But don't let those facts get in your way.
Don't want to rehash this, but even State Department Personnel testified that budget cuts were not a factor.
Investigation after investigation after investigation has found no smoking gun. So why is Trey Gowdy continuing to investigate this?
I don't know what there, but to be fair it's coming out that part of the reason there may have been no smoking gun found..,not saying one exists...and why there is still need to investigate...is precisely because the correspondence was kept off govt servers and kept hidden and then selectively and grudgingly parsed out..I find it hard to complain that it's all been investigated and why does it continue when the information gets withheld from the investigative body. That's like saying the police should all go home if the suspect says "I didn't do it".
Quote:
In comment 12303203 sphinx said:Quote:but Jeb Bush's emails don't seem to phase anyone.
I don't like Bush and will not vote for him. But really, it's not nearly equivalent.
Why not?
Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
George Stephanopoulos is a former Clinton aide. To his fault, he should have disclosed during that interview with the author of 'Clinton Cash' that he gave $ to the Clinton Foundation. He messed up there. But in the days after, I heard few mentions of the fact that that author had to make 8 or 9 significant revisions to his book because they were inaccurate.
Quote:
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
Quote:
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
I won't call his tenure a disaster but it's quite convenient to gloss over the role he played in aiding wall street to fuck us all with no lube.
And no SFGF, jrud called out your cheerleading but he hardly claimed you're the only one. The cheerleaders on both sides suck a giant bag of dicks.
Quote:
In comment 12303216 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I have NEVER defended her there. Where I defend her is this idea that is implied throughout every commentary regarding her emails is that something nefarious is hiding in them.
If there's nothing to hide why delete them? If anything it was a golden opportunity to take her opponents to task and say "hey, I have nothing to hide, have at it". Instead she's done the exact opposite. I mean really, this is common sense unless you're blinded by partisanship. And it's only one of the serious issues she's been as evasive as possible about.
I don't know why she deleted them. You'd have to ask her. I'm not defending her there; I'm defending her in this implication that because she deleted emails she must be hiding some criminal activity. I just don't buy that. And she has called for the emails to be released as soon as possible. These drips of them every 30 days hurts more than helps.
She deleted them because she is hiding things about the Foundation and possibly Benghazi. Does anyone honestly believe that there were no emails on this? She and her staff used that server. And her staff were paid by the foundation as well. It's probably as bad or worse than the FIFA scandal, but that gets more press.
Quote:
In comment 12303200 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Come on. In the last couple months she's had an email scandal, a donor scandal, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and umpteen tempests that would have escaped a teapot had the subject been someone other than a Clinton. Is there a smoking gun for criminal conduct? Nope. But when you want to be President the standard should be higher than "I didn't do anything criminal."
Give me a break, there are examples on any candidate regarding smoking guns (Bush AWOL for example). Show me any ohter politician that has had the gun pointed at them remotely close to what they have been subjected to. then tell me ANY other candidate out there that there would not be any "smoking guns" if they had a multiple investigations and 100M spent to get them.
There's a minimizing or deflecting defense to everything. "Jeb used a Gmail account too!" "No smoking gun on those donations!" At the end of the day they've been "subjected to" scrutiny that, since Bill left office, has been nowhere near that which their conduct actually warranted. There is so much scrutiny - again, not nearly as much as is warranted - because they continually toe the gray area between legal and illegal, ethical and unethical. Do we really think that two very savvy politicians who were lawyers first, with even savvier legal and political advisers, are going to be directly tied to something that is illegal? But the fact that they continue to tread in these gray areas with utter impunity is something that should upset all of us, but some of us would sooner cheer on our team than cast a critical eye at our frumpy, post-menopausal Tom Brady.
Can you honestly tell me of any candidate out there who could go through what they have had to endure and tyhem not find anything? You have had virtually every single investigative entity in our country look into them, you have had millions on top of millions spent for this. you have had investigations change course multiple times when they can't get them on something. Any person in this country would have some shit come out on them with that kind of scrutiny. So to say she is un-electable because we should hold someone to a higher level (seriously, have you seen who the fuck is in the Senate and the House?) I challenge you to tell me who that could be if they were put through the same test.
Now with that said i will agree that she seems to sure bring a boatload of it on herself. To not be 100% above board with regards to some of her actions AFTER all the investigations is stupid on her part. That would be the aspect that makes me hestitate
Quote:
In comment 12303071 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
The thing is their is reason to believe they have crossed it. Nothing has been found as of yet, but as people said earlier, the Clintons and Stephnopolous have friends in the right places.
It wouldnt shock me in 20-25 years something is unraveled that would cost either of them the presidency.
The thing that gets me is that there's enough to be at least wary, and what there is is likely enough to have investigations going into her presidency. So that's controversial and angst and causes huge national friction..like during Bill's time. Or, it looks like there's something there but dems win the Senate and quash asking, which looks political which creates angst and causes huge national friction. And you know all those *before* you make the choice to have her be President. If I'm running the democrats, why would I put us in that position in the first place? I'm begging people to present themselves as alternatives.
The 'rules' were Florida law.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12303243 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
I won't call his tenure a disaster but it's quite convenient to gloss over the role he played in aiding wall street to fuck us all with no lube.
And no SFGF, jrud called out your cheerleading but he hardly claimed you're the only one. The cheerleaders on both sides suck a giant bag of dicks.
Great point on his presidency.
The cheerleading is nauseating.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
If you wanna contribute, please actually contribute like with your Kasich comment earlier.
But for fuck's sake if you're gonna keep making posts like the last couple, just grow the fuck up already and bite your tongue.
Quote:
In comment 12303248 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 12303243 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I do agree with you that the Clintons toe the line. I'm not going to dispute that. But as you said, they are smart enough never to cross it.
so...even if that's the extent of it, you'd have to say if she's not (smoking gun) criminal, she's at least unethical and dishonest. So, is that someone who makes you comfortable as your President, just because she's not a Republican?
Yes. Because I think the Republicans & their policies are infinitely worse. I thought Bill was shady too, but compared to the alternative, he was it.
so out of curiosity, is there anyone alive or dead in history so notorious or infamous that you wouldn't vote for if he or she was running against a republican? Do you have a line?
Yes, as long as they haven't done something criminally. In that case, obviously I could not support them. I'd probably just sit the election out.
Quote:
In comment 12303168 GeneInCal said:
Quote:
In comment 12303071 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I said Clinton wins based on demographics and electoral college advantage.
And she's running circles around GOP on immigration. If Republicans don't boost their Hispanic share of the vote significantly, it's President Hillary.
Wrong. Big surprise. If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in the last election, he still would have lost. If he got 5% more of the white vote, he would have won. That's the facts. The Hispanic vote is not as important as you wish. Reagan won two landslides with 5% of the minority vote.
.
You have had some truly horrific posts, but this might take the cake. Let's go...
1) If Romney got 70% of the Hispanic vote in 2012, he'd be President Romney right now, Obama would be in Chicago, & all would be right in your world.
2) The electorate is rapidly changing. The share of the white vote is probably going to drop two or three points in '16 from the '12 election makeup.
3) In 1980 & 1984, the percentage of the electorate that was white was like 80, 85%.
Saying the GOP doesn't need to expand their base is truly LOL worthy. Keep thinking like that & Democrats will be in the White House until the end of time.
You're just awful
Quote:
ut what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn't. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)
Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP - ( New Window )
Gene 1, me 0. I look forward to evening the score in the months ahead.
Quote:
In comment 12303223 sphinx said:Quote:In comment 12303215 buford said:Quote:Is Jeb Bush under investigation for anything? Were his emails subpoenaed? At the time he was Governor, was there rules about how government officials kept emails?
The 'rules' were Florida law. Link - ( New Window )
Fine, Bush should be disqualified from being President. Thanks, I would love for him to go away anyway.
Quote:
In comment 12303157 Deej said:
Quote:
In comment 12303145 Big Al said:
Quote:
In comment 12303085 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
BTW: what crimes has she committed? I'd love to know, as I'm sure a lot of others would too.
That is what an investigation is needed to determine. DOJ investigations have been started on far less suspicious looking stuff.
Well what do you suspect? Or are we just going to start another fucking permanent prosecution of the Clintons. Maybe we can drop $50 million to find out that she also likes to get her dick sucked.
And that is why the Clintons can get away with stuff. Her followers will always yell victim by the vast right wing conspiracy. As just mentioned, forget the crazies and their charges and look at some of the lies constantly being discovered and the ever changing spin as more suspicious stuff is uncovered.
So you call for an "investigation", and I ask what into, and your answer is to say that my question is why the Clintons get away with "stuff".
Amazing.
And I have a pair thanks. Maybe you ought to learn some maturity? Self control? The ability to contribute to a conversation like an adult?
Na, instead let's compare politics to war, tell people to grow a pair, and mock the other side relentlessly because you're a cheerleader for your side....
pathetic
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
Quote:
In comment 12303263 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
Fucking stupid.
But whatever, you've been acting like a petulant child for years, I shouldn't have engaged you.
Quote:
In comment 12303275 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12303263 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
So the Clintons are unusual in being 'political animals'? Uh, there's a dude on the other side who is running for the same office 'Poppy' & his older brother had. What do you call them? Of course they're political animals. Who would dispute that? All of these people are narcissistic individuals.
If I didn't like her on the issues, why would I support her? She's a Democrat. I'm a Democrat. We agree on pretty much everything. And yes, it is about keeping my party in power because I think their policies are the best for America & it's future. I'm not sure why that angers you so much. You're a Republican. You want your party in power because you believe in what they espouse.
Emails: Investigate it. Maybe Im downplaying it, but if proven then she violated FOIA. She's a fucking FOIA scofflaw. My experience as a civil litigator tells me that deleting emails is just about the dumbest way to attempt to destroy evidence, because (1) they're hard to kill, and more importantly (2) someone else fucking has them (because that's what an email is -- 2+ way communication).
Maybe I cut her too much slack, but the email thing strikes me as not a scandal. A mark against her, sure. But the undercurrent to me is that the Benghazi brigade are overblowing it because of the total failure of that witch hunt. Maybe I'd care more if (1) some of the deleted emails pop up and are incriminating, and/or (2) an aide flips and says Hillary demanded that all the emails be deleted (because Im not even sure that Grandma Hill was in on the decision to delete; my mother still cant print after 20 years).
Donor "Scandal" / conflicts of interest: This is a MUCH easier call for me. You explained this to me last time. All you have is the appearance of impropriety. A charity her husband runs (and now she helps run) took money from some feriners while people connected to those feriners had business before state, and therefore ... she's crooked.
My problem with this is Politician X took money from a source who had business before him = corrupt effectively criminalizes the entire US political system. It's not that it happens every day once or twice -- it's that it is effectively the system we have. I wish it were not so, but alas it is. The Supreme Court has essentially said it's protected by the first amendment. And those are direct donations to political campaigns/PACs! But Clinton does it, with the money to a charity, and it's the height of corruption. Fucking nonsense.
---
Is Hillary's nose clean as the driven snow, in that there are no eyebrow raisers? No. But she and her husband have been investigated to hell, and nothing comes close to the shit that the last three two-term GOP presidents have pulled (Iraq, Iran-Contra, Watergate). I mean, any republican kvetching about whether we can trust Hillary better be spitting on the grave of Saint Reagan.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
As i said, she has not been the smartest with regards to that which is where i have my doubts about her. Whether anything she did was illegal we will see, but i bet nothing come from it.
At this point i would not be shocked to see Clinton investigation fatigue set in and actually give a bump for her
I still say it's Clinton-Bush. Yeah, not exactly what I was hoping for in '08 after I thought we turned the page on that chapter, but se la vie.
Quote:
In comment 12303275 buford said:
Quote:
In comment 12303263 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
How do you know? Did you read these emails? For all I know, they could have been email chains about Mad Men or if Eli was going to the HOF.
Once again, the fact is that we don't know because she deleted them. No one, besides you apparently, believes that she only deleted emails about yoga and Chelsea's wedding. The fact is that she was supposed to hand over ALL of her emails. Since she choose to do government business on a personal computer, she is the one that compromised her 'private' emails by commingling them with her work emails. AND she was asked by the Benghazi Investigation to hand over ALL of her emails on the subject. According to Gowdy there are glaring lapses in emails, no emails for weeks or months, around that time. Gee, was yoga really that big back then?
Where have I defended her handling of the email/server? I haven't. My contention is that people continue to imply she did something criminal & the emails are the smoking gun. I don't think they are. 1) I don't think she's stupid enough to do that on a computer; as the old saying goes, never write it down. 2) So Gowdy is investigating something that has been investigated time & again? Why? Why is this going to stretch into 2016? It's politics, plain & simple.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say you aren't defending her and then say that she didn't do anything wrong. And yes, she is not stupid, which is exactly why she had the private server from day one and why she deleted any emails she didn't want anyone to find out. She's crafty and calculating. She knew exactly what she was doing.
And it really pisses me off when people cry 'politics'. The Clintons are political animals. They don't do anything without thinking of the political motive. Please stop insulting us by saying you like her on the issues because she doesn't car about the issues. They are just a means to get in power to pay back her 'donors'. You really just don't care if she is a corrupt person who has sold the future Presidency. It's all about the party and keeping it in power. They count on people like you.
Please tell me one candidate running for the presidency that is not a "political animal"?
I still say it's Clinton-Bush. Yeah, not exactly what I was hoping for in '08 after I thought we turned the page on that chapter, but se la vie.
My point was that while a lot of us may disagree on stances with HRC, we are all in accordance with Jeb. So we dont need to discuss him. haha
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
The whole PAC thing for both sides is horrible. that would be the first step towards cleaning up the election process, get rid of all the pacs
Quote:
was a few months ago she ripped GOP's for super PACs, and now in the last month she got at least 2 super PACs to back her campaign.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
The whole PAC thing for both sides is horrible. that would be the first step towards cleaning up the election process, get rid of all the pacs
Over 2 billion dollars last election, I am guess somewhere near 5 billion this election. Think that money could be spend elsewhere? Holy shitballs.
Maybe not a cabinet job, but Michelle isnt going away. Just my opinion though.
So the Clintons are unusual in being 'political animals'? Uh, there's a dude on the other side who is running for the same office 'Poppy' & his older brother had. What do you call them? Of course they're political animals. Who would dispute that? All of these people are narcissistic individuals.
If I didn't like her on the issues, why would I support her? She's a Democrat. I'm a Democrat. We agree on pretty much everything. And yes, it is about keeping my party in power because I think their policies are the best for America & it's future. I'm not sure why that angers you so much. You're a Republican. You want your party in power because you believe in what they espouse.
No, they aren't unusual. Which makes it silly for anyone to complain about politics when referring to any investigation in Benghazi or anything regarding the Clintons or any Democrat.
And as I said, the issues don't matter, not to Hillary anyway. Didn't she pay women less than men on her staff? Wasn't she against gay marriage and illegal Immigrants just a few years ago? Now she's about income inequality while crying about being 'dead broke' days before she signed a multi million dollar advance for a book?
She will do nothing for those issue, it's just a ploy to get elected. Anyone who falls for it is just being played. Do you also vote for Nancy Pelosi every 2 years too?
I really don't consider myself a Republican and I don't like many Republicans. If Clinton as an R I sure as hell would not vote for her.
The Clinton's and the Obama's hate each other. But maybe they've made another pack to support each other. But don't forget, it might be Chelsea's turn soon! I heard that she would be the 'official First Lady', If Clinton is elected so Bill doesn't have to waste his time picking out china.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
To add some context to her stance ...
But on her first full day of campaigning, during a roundtable at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa on Tuesday, Clinton stressed the need to curb the role of money in politics. "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," she said.
Clinton's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, suggested Clinton's stance isn't hypocrisy - it's just smart strategy, given the current the current structure of campaign finance laws.
"Here's what Hillary Clinton doesn't do - unilaterally disarm," Palmieri told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday. "So as long as the rules are what the rules are, she is going to work hard to raise as much money as she needs to wage an effective campaign."
Link - ( New Window )
And I disagree that she won't do anything on those issues. She'll try. I don't know how successful she'll be with, at a minimum, a Republican House.
She's a politician, and not necessarily a great one either. But as I've said ad nauseum, she's 98.5% likely of being the Democratic nominee next November.
Quote:
was a few months ago she ripped GOP's for super PACs, and now in the last month she got at least 2 super PACs to back her campaign.
I know PACs are critical for a campaign, but dont rip the opposition for them, then go and get them yourself. It just looks bad.
To add some context to her stance ...
But on her first full day of campaigning, during a roundtable at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa on Tuesday, Clinton stressed the need to curb the role of money in politics. "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment," she said.
Clinton's communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, suggested Clinton's stance isn't hypocrisy - it's just smart strategy, given the current the current structure of campaign finance laws.
"Here's what Hillary Clinton doesn't do - unilaterally disarm," Palmieri told CBS News' Nancy Cordes on Tuesday. "So as long as the rules are what the rules are, she is going to work hard to raise as much money as she needs to wage an effective campaign." Link - ( New Window )
Oh please, are you really falling for that? She knows damn well there will be no Constitutional Amendment, it's already gone to the SC. It's just more fodder for the low information voters. Citizens United! YEAH! Hilary will get rid of it!!! Morons.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
And it's probably the single biggest thing that needs to be addressed save for the POTUS primary system currently in place.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
You really believe all the crap she dishes out? So sad.
Listen, I wish Warren would run. I wish Gillibrand would run. I wish Sharrod Brown would run. But, as far as I can see, they're not. It's Hillary, Bernie (who I love & think is totally ignored by the national media; the dude rules social media), & Martin O'Malley.
Bernie's too out there, O'Malley is too blah, & it's just Hillary.
John Kerry already ran.
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
Quote:
& I'm glad she said she would appoint SCOTUS justices who would overturn that decision.
The amount of $ in politics is an embarrassment. You hear more 'So & so is competing against so & so in the _________ (fill in prominent donor) primary' than you do about the issues.
You really believe all the crap she dishes out? So sad.
She would appoint justices who align with her worldview, which would be against the court's original decision. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Are you implying she would appoint justices who would uphold the decision? If you do, I think you're completely lost.
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
It should be explored. Just like open primaries, publicly funded campaigns, shorter campaigns, and maybe even getting rid the TV ads and forcing the electorate to read up on people rather than watch cheap shots slung back and forth.
I'd also look into outlawing lobbying at the federal level and relegating it to the states and localities.
But none of that will happen until we tell both parties to fuck off in some fashion.
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
Dep, that's not a bad idea. I would like to scrap it all together, though I realize that would mean each candidate would just visit California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc.
I also would like to get rid of Iowa & NH holding the first caucus/primary. They are not representative of the country at all demographically.
Quote:
is it time to change it and give a percentage of the electoral votes to both candidates for whatever percentage they receive? So if Hillary got 60% of PA vote, she would get that percentage of the electoral votes?
I think it would do the voting process a great justice as more people would go out and vote since then their vote would now count. I mean if you are a GOP, good luck having your vote mean something in California like wise for Democrats in a lot of midwest states.
Am I way off base thinkign this?
Dep, that's not a bad idea. I would like to scrap it all together, though I realize that would mean each candidate would just visit California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc.
I also would like to get rid of Iowa & NH holding the first caucus/primary. They are not representative of the country at all demographically.
Well at least GOPs will go to CA, NY, PA,etc... And Dems will go to midwest states and TX (even texas may change as soon as 2020.)
I'd never get rid of televised debates. I'd add a fuck ton more. Fuck the speeches and rallys. I wanna see the fucks debate policy till they can't fucking speak.
Is this a response to me? Are you kidding? My "rejoinder" is the first 4 paragraphs of my post, which you ignore completely to mischaracterize the 5th paragraph. I guess you have no thoughtful response.
My point in the 5th paragraph was probably not worth making, but it's that Bill's presidency was investigated to hell, and the best anyone got him on was lying about marital infidelity. Yet GOPers go on and on like it was the end of times when Crooked Arkansas Bill was running things. The dishonesty out of Nixon, Reagan, and GWB's administrations on the other hand went to affairs of state. It's many, many times worse.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
Quote:
In comment 12303307 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
LOL...okay so tell me what has been "revealed" that meets that qualifier of yours?
Quote:
Can't see a reason why presidential elections wouldn't be better decided by the popular vote.
Diminishes the smaller states. I think a popular vote is closer to what SanFran was suggesting. Why go anywhere other than top 7-8 states to campaign?
You're right. I think the EC is outdated. Maybe made sense in an era where sectarian lines were drawn at the state level -- MA, VA, PA, and NY could team up. That's not a material concern these days.
The EC effectively disenfranchises most voters. As a NYer my presidential vote has never once mattered. The battle for the presidency is fought over a few swing states. Over the years the states may move, but in any election it is really just 3-8 swing states that really matter. And so politicians promise things that appeal to the voters in those states, while ignoring the people of NY, CA, TX, WY, MT etc.
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President. [/quote]
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce.
You're in the Dave Chappell proof bubble, where absolutely nothing that is revealed is proof enough that she should not be President.
She made Thriller. Thriller.
Show me a scandal I should care about. Blow my mind. You're coming with weak sauce. [/quote]
You should care about the donor scandal. It's a giant fuck you to the electorate. It is one big giant appearance of impropriety. I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils plenty of times, but let's be up front and admit that's the issue here. That's what I'll do for a majority of the Republicans in the field (a couple I could grow to like and a couple would make me vote write-in). Independently Hillary has little more to recommend her than the sense of inevitability she's had since '06 or so.
Quote:
you'd struggle to find many career politicians with a fraction the exposure to scandal Hillary has had. Some of the individual scandals are worse, sometimes the politician in question is much more deeply implicated than Hillary has been, but for sheer volume she is in a class by herself. She is smart, nobody doubts that, but her conduct regarding the Foundation is that of someone who simply doesn't give a fuck, and someone who expects that she has enough friendly media outlets that she won't be meaningfully called on it. These scandals breaking now is a blessing, because the public will probably be tired of them long before the election heats up.
"Exposure to scandal" is a great turn of phrase. So for two decades she is accused of all manners of wrongdoing, essentially none of it sticks or is clearly a mountain out of a mole hill. But the accusations themselves have a relevant critical mass? Staggering.
We'll never see eye to eye on this. You think you're not in the Clinton Derangement Bubble. You're wrong. Everything they do is the worst-thing-evah!
The best is that now since there is nothing tangible, its all about the appearance of wrongdoing as specified by her political opponents, that disqualifies her. That completely ignores the fact that no other politician has had the staggering amount of investigations after investigations (some nonsensical) they have had to endure that have amounted to nothing.
The fact that it is unprecedented how much money and power was lined up against them is completely ignored as a factor, and that any politician would have had some shit to deal with from that kind of scrutiny