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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.