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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.