Publicus Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Keep the faith, JT. There is nothing in the Constitution that says she cannot serve as President with a criminal record. Even if she is indicted and convicted, she can still run for the office and, if elected, carry out her duties. Of course, she won't be able to get a security clearance but that is already a very likely event. She has already proven to be a tiny bit irresponsible at protecting the nation's secrets. Serving as president might be a tad awkward if she is in prison but I'm sure the Secret Service can work something out. There's a bright side somewhere. Another moonbeam strikes the outhouse. Make up a rightwhingers wet dream storyline predicated on if if if. Cause that's all they got, which is nuthin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtsabai Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I do believe a lot of people here and especially the lame stream media have vastly underestimated Bernie Sanders' appeal. In fact I believe lame stream media is deliberately ignoring Bernie and favoring, or trying to favor Hillary, the neocon/neoliberal war mongering tool of Wall Street criminals and banksters. Hillary and her shills, including her daughter have flat out lied about Bernie's "Medicare for all" plan. He stacks up better than Hillary against any Republican (what ever they really are-fascists perhaps)clown. More on Sanders http://www.motherjones.com//kevin-drum/2016/01/bernie-sanders-releases-outline-universal-health-care-plan%E2%80%94and-its-pretty-good http://thiscantbehappening.net/print/3002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It is interesting that Bernie is considered a Lefty or an evil socialist. In most developed Democratic nations he would be considered centralist. The social policies he advocates are accepted basic citizens birth right. America has a lot of catching up to do. The most powerful military force in the world but can't win a military conflict in the most backward countries and can't provide affordable healthcare or education or maintain infrastructure for its citizens. Is there any real candidate worth voting for in this election other than Bernie. Hilary is just more of the same and any Republican candidate funded by Corporate America isn't even worth consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 That's true, the USA is a right wing leaning nation, which makes electing Bernie highly unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillbornagain Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It has become very obvious that the woman is a pathological liar who will say or do anything to get in power.. Of course her message is failing. Has nothing to do with her honesty or her sincerity. Ask Pat Smith and the families of the Americans murdered at Benghazi. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=pat+smith+calling+hillary+a+liar%2c+you+tube&&view=detail&mid=2F88383F45B1D2755CEA2F88383F45B1D2755CEA&rvsmid=BB4AC3DE00772A859077BB4AC3DE00772A859077&FORM=VDQVAP&fsscr=0 And that's why when someone's child gets murdered, he or she gets appointed to be the detective on this case. Because their inexperience combined with their intense emotional involvement with the case, make for the ideal person to guide an investigation. You know, just recently I had some person in this forum tell me that Hillary Clinton's emails prove her responsibility in the Benghazi case. I pointed out that seemed a remarkably strange assertion since, if it were true, why hasn't the House or Senate subcommittee cited this evidence. Given the attitude evinced by the Republican majorities, you would think they would jump at the chance. You know what his response was? Nothing. You know why? Because he suffers from HDS...Hillary Derangement Syndrome. And when a sufferer is contronted with an argument he can't refute, his brain shuts down, reboots and starts spouting the same tripe all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up-country_sinclair Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Secretary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate who could be beaten by a few Republicans running for the nomination. It won't be easy, but it is possible considering all her baggage. Trump is most certainly not one of those who could beat her in a general election. I fear Senator Cruz would also lose badly. Republicans need to choose someone who actually has a chance to win the general election. That is the point, after all, isn't it? In my view, that limits the field to Governor Kasich and (less likely) Senator Rubio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 It has become very obvious that the woman is a pathological liar who will say or do anything to get in power.. Of course her message is failing. Actually the byline is quite explicit, and correct. "Clinton's message," en total, is "failing..." In failing Progressivism thrives. Under the cover of emotions nearly all polices lead to "failing." Failing economies, failing communities, failing race relations, failing education standards, failing confidence in government, justice, employment, morality, discipline, international standing, military standards... always "failing." "Failing" is the byline of Progressivism. It is so by design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve654 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Anyone happen to notice in the "debates" when Bernie mentioned that Hilary cashed in around $600k from speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Anyone happen to notice in the "debates" when Bernie mentioned that Hilary cashed in around $600k from speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs? Yes! and this is a large part as to why Bernie is giving Hilary a run for her money. Literally. There is a perception that Hilary is too close to Wall Street and Corporate America just out to look after them and leave the American people behind. The perception is well founded. No where near as bad as the Republicans who are totally funded and only support Wall Street and Corporate America they are just utterly corrupted. That is why Bernie is doing so well. People want change, a fairer America, an America that is focused on the Citizens and their financial well-being not just making the already wealthy even more wealthy. Many simply don't see that in Hilary and I think they are absolutely right. Hilary is simply more of the same. Not as bad as a Republican though. I think Americans are beginning to understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Anyone happen to notice in the "debates" when Bernie mentioned that Hilary cashed in around $600k from speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs? It's been noticed by many people. It would seem Hillary doesn't really care, though. “Anybody who thinks they can buy me doesn’t know me,” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Says She Has No Regrets About Taking Millions In Wall Street Speaking Fees CHUCK ROSS Reporter 12:30 PM 01/22/2016 Hillary Clinton said Thursday that she does not regret giving short speeches to Wall Street firms in exchange for millions of dollars in compensation. “Anybody who thinks they can buy me doesn’t know me,” a defensive Clinton said in an interview with the Des Moines Register when asked about criticism she’s received from progressives in her party and from her main opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, for her lucrative speaking gigs. A dozen financial firms, including Morgan Stanley, Deutsch Bank and Goldman Sachs, have paid the former secretary of state $2.9 million for speaking gigs since 2013, when Clinton left the State Department. Goldman Sachs alone paid her $675,000 for three separate speeches. <snip> Article continues here: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/hillary-no-regrets-about-giant-wall-street-speaking-fees-video/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Hillary has holed her own campaign below the water line due to her own paranoia and abuse of power in attempting to rig the electoral process to be a no contest in her favour. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261557/hillary-too-paranoid-be-president-daniel-greenfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Koch Bros with their almost one billion bucks are still trying to find their Republican party candidate. Koch Bros lost Scott Walker after Walker turned out to be one of the worst candidates in presidential campaign history. Marco Rubio didn't impress 'em just as he fails to impress anyone outside of his family. JeBush is ! and ? not mention * and JEB already had his own big money Republicans. Sheldon Adelson is still looking for his guy in the 2016 election campaign cycle who is the equivalent of his guy Newt Gingrich who Adelson funded by the many millions and single-handedly kept going in the 2012 primaries. Et cetera over on the Republican side. Donors to HR Clinton include Emily's List, LGBT Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and other groups and organisations targeted in perpetuity by the extreme far out rightwhinge socio-cultural and political reactionaries. Think of who a prezident Bernie Socialist would appoint as treasury secretary then who HR Clinton might appoint instead. I'm still waiting for Bernie to start attacking the Fed so he can sound like former Rep Ron Paul too. Bernie's been careful not to do that so far but his campaign does lead logically down that old road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve654 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Anyone happen to notice in the "debates" when Bernie mentioned that Hilary cashed in around $600k from speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs? Yes! and this is a large part as to why Bernie is giving Hilary a run for her money. Literally. There is a perception that Hilary is too close to Wall Street and Corporate America just out to look after them and leave the American people behind. The perception is well founded. No where near as bad as the Republicans who are totally funded and only support Wall Street and Corporate America they are just utterly corrupted. That is why Bernie is doing so well. People want change, a fairer America, an America that is focused on the Citizens and their financial well-being not just making the already wealthy even more wealthy. Many simply don't see that in Hilary and I think they are absolutely right. Hilary is simply more of the same. Not as bad as a Republican though. I think Americans are beginning to understand this. Glad we see eye to eye on this. Would be great if Bernie were elected and things started to turn around again, but the way the system is set up, he could be President and still be blocked from doing just about anything if the Senate and Congress are against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 For all the negative comments from our Republicans friends, sooner or later they are going to have to face up to this: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) As ever, the right is always in the same-o and same-o negative campaign mode to elect one of these wackjob Republicians running for POTUS. The thread is another occasion to peddle propaganda and links from the mass of well funded and highly financed rightwhinge cockamamied online media. Rightwhinge media don't discuss the campaigning or the messaging of HR Clinton. They sling around instead HR Clinton in prison, HR Clinton the paranoid, throw up the accusation HR Clinton is a pathologue, Ben Ghazi, Benghazi, BenGhazi, emails etc etc. There's no discussion from the right here of HR Clinton vs Sen. Bernie Sanders or of the campaigns of either. Until the right starts to discuss the thread and its topic, it is an intruder into the discourse which is about the messaging of each campaign. Regardless of what one thinks of HR Clinton, the topic is about the campaigns of the odds-on favorite HR Clinton vs the rise of Sen Sanders, not former SecState Clinton per se. Edited January 23, 2016 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Koch Bros with their almost one billion bucks are still trying to find their Republican party candidate. Koch Bros lost Scott Walker after Walker turned out to be one of the worst candidates in presidential campaign history. Marco Rubio didn't impress 'em just as he fails to impress anyone outside of his family. JeBush is ! and ? not mention * and JEB already had his own big money Republicans. Sheldon Adelson is still looking for his guy in the 2016 election campaign cycle who is the equivalent of his guy Newt Gingrich who Adelson funded by the many millions and single-handedly kept going in the 2012 primaries. Et cetera over on the Republican side. Donors to HR Clinton include Emily's List, LGBT Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and other groups and organisations targeted in perpetuity by the extreme far out rightwhinge socio-cultural and political reactionaries. Think of who a prezident Bernie Socialist would appoint as treasury secretary then who HR Clinton might appoint instead. I'm still waiting for Bernie to start attacking the Fed so he can sound like former Rep Ron Paul too. Bernie's been careful not to do that so far but his campaign does lead logically down that old road. Wait no longer comrade. It will go something like this: and like this: Don't mess with the Bern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAppletons Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 As ever, the right is always in the same-o and same-o negative campaign mode to elect one of these wackjob Republicians running for POTUS. The thread is another occasion to peddle propaganda and links from the mass of well funded and highly financed rightwhinge cockamamied online media. Rightwhinge media don't discuss the campaigning or the messaging of HR Clinton. They sling around instead HR Clinton in prison, HR Clinton the paranoid, throw up the accusation HR Clinton is a pathologue, Ben Ghazi, Benghazi, BenGhazi, emails etc etc. There's no discussion from the right here of HR Clinton vs Sen. Bernie Sanders or of the campaigns of either. Until the right starts to discuss the thread and its topic, it is an intruder into the discourse which is about the messaging of each campaign. Regardless of what one thinks of HR Clinton, the topic is about the campaigns of the odds-on favorite HR Clinton vs the rise of Sen Sanders, not former SecState Clinton per se. HR Clinton vs Sen Bernie Sanders: - One is a pathological liar, the other is Bernie Sanders. - One is married to a sexual predator, the other is Bernie Sanders. - One purposely ignored/circumvented security protocol in the course of her previous position, the other is Bernie Sanders. Is that sort of what you meant? By the way your statement that ... "the topic is about the campaigns of....., not former SecState Clinton per se" is typical Clinton fanboi BS. Everyone is supposed to just forget what happened when she was SecState? Ha, ha, ha. Tell that to the FBI, fanboi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johpa Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Think of who a prezident Bernie Socialist would appoint as treasury secretary then who HR Clinton might appoint instead. I'm still waiting for Bernie to start attacking the Fed so he can sound like former Rep Ron Paul too. Bernie's been careful not to do that so far but his campaign does lead logically down that old road. Clinton would appoint another progeny of Goldman Sachs or a sympathizer. Sanders would likely appoint an admirer of Stiglitz or Krugman or perhaps a devotee of the more offbeat but so far proven classical economist Michael Hudson. I think Sanders would keep a greatly modified Fed, unlike Paul whose Libertarian views would eliminate the Fed. I am currently reading Hudson's recent book, "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy". Not light reading but worth the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Secretary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate who could be beaten by a few Republicans running for the nomination. It won't be easy, but it is possible considering all her baggage. Trump is most certainly not one of those who could beat her in a general election. I fear Senator Cruz would also lose badly. Republicans need to choose someone who actually has a chance to win the general election. That is the point, after all, isn't it? In my view, that limits the field to Governor Kasich and (less likely) Senator Rubio. Kasich!!!!!! Good grief, he's nowhere man. Even if he did well in the primaries, he's not ( IMO ) going to get the turnout to win the general. Rubio? Who knows- he's young, articulate and not Trump. Let's see how he does in the primaries. This contest has exposed the emperor's new clothes- no one is running that is better than the current selection, on either side. To my great surprise, it might yet come down to the tv showhost vs the liar. I do hope the Donald wins, I love to hear the sound of liberals crying in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Koch Bros with their almost one billion bucks are still trying to find their Republican party candidate. Koch Bros lost Scott Walker after Walker turned out to be one of the worst candidates in presidential campaign history. Marco Rubio didn't impress 'em just as he fails to impress anyone outside of his family. JeBush is ! and ? not mention * and JEB already had his own big money Republicans. Sheldon Adelson is still looking for his guy in the 2016 election campaign cycle who is the equivalent of his guy Newt Gingrich who Adelson funded by the many millions and single-handedly kept going in the 2012 primaries. Et cetera over on the Republican side. Donors to HR Clinton include Emily's List, LGBT Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and other groups and organisations targeted in perpetuity by the extreme far out rightwhinge socio-cultural and political reactionaries. Think of who a prezident Bernie Socialist would appoint as treasury secretary then who HR Clinton might appoint instead. I'm still waiting for Bernie to start attacking the Fed so he can sound like former Rep Ron Paul too. Bernie's been careful not to do that so far but his campaign does lead logically down that old road. Wait no longer comrade. It will go something like this: and like this: Don't mess with the Bern Hold the press!!!!!!!! Thank you so much for putting those excerpts on the forum. I admit that I have been deceived by the propaganda against Sanders and thought he was a leftie nut job, but that man speaks with a straight tongue ( unlike his lying opponent ). Bernie is the MAN. If I were an American, I'd be voting for him, without a doubt. BTW, he and the Donald have the same viewpoint on the export of jobs to low cost countries, and I reckon there will be more similarities if looked for. I still want the Donald to win, just to PO the loonie lefties, but Bernie is the only candidate that has an inkling of the real problems with the economy, and might do something about it. Good luck Bernie- hope you thrash the liar in the primaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Now why don't we look at old Bern's revised tax plan for the American people...and he claims he is for the middle class? http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 It would be funny if the Republicans field a non republican and the Democrats field a non democrat. .Hillary is art of the problem, does anyone remember NAFTA? it was the beginning of the end.Does anyone remember Ross Perot's " giant sucking sound of lobs leaving the US" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Now why don't we look at old Bern's revised tax plan for the American people...and he claims he is for the middle class? http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates Hmmmmm. Does seem that he had a major brain fart between 75,300 and 250,000. However, the rich would prefer Bernie to me, as I'd be taxing anything over 10 mil at 90%, over 2 mil would be 80%. That is for the amount over, not the entire income. If they invested it in business that produced actual jobs, it'd be 0%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 over $5M 90% taxation from me. Bernie needs to crunch the numbers a bit more I think. Plenty of fat to be collected from the greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin. Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base. Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive. That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable. Arguments against above theory???? Edited January 23, 2016 by sirineou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 ...from the greedy to the greedier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin. Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base. Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive. That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable. Arguments against above theory???? Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects. MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin. Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base. Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive. That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable. Arguments against above theory???? Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects. MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise. even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in? as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does? I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) As ever, the right is always in the same-o and same-o negative campaign mode to elect one of these wackjob Republicians running for POTUS. The thread is another occasion to peddle propaganda and links from the mass of well funded and highly financed rightwhinge cockamamied online media. Rightwhinge media don't discuss the campaigning or the messaging of HR Clinton. They sling around instead HR Clinton in prison, HR Clinton the paranoid, throw up the accusation HR Clinton is a pathologue, Ben Ghazi, Benghazi, BenGhazi, emails etc etc. There's no discussion from the right here of HR Clinton vs Sen. Bernie Sanders or of the campaigns of either. Until the right starts to discuss the thread and its topic, it is an intruder into the discourse which is about the messaging of each campaign. Regardless of what one thinks of HR Clinton, the topic is about the campaigns of the odds-on favorite HR Clinton vs the rise of Sen Sanders, not former SecState Clinton per se. HR Clinton vs Sen Bernie Sanders: - One is a pathological liar, the other is Bernie Sanders. - One is married to a sexual predator, the other is Bernie Sanders. - One purposely ignored/circumvented security protocol in the course of her previous position, the other is Bernie Sanders. Is that sort of what you meant? By the way your statement that ... "the topic is about the campaigns of....., not former SecState Clinton per se" is typical Clinton fanboi BS. Everyone is supposed to just forget what happened when she was SecState? Ha, ha, ha. Tell that to the FBI, fanboi. From the OP stud: Though Sanders has dismissed questions about Clinton's use of a private email account and server as secretary of state and how she responded to the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks, some Democrats say she needs a better response to his critique of her ties to Wall Street, which they argue reinforces months of Republican attacks on her character. Nothing in there about FBI, Bill Clinton, "pathological liar", or circumventing anything. That is not a part of the Democratic party discourse in the campaign for the Party's nomination. It is rightwhinge obsessive compulsive intrusions into the discourse within the Democratic Party. Anyone can of course comment but being relevant, material, germane, would be an appropriate approach. Suggest you visit here: http://www.readingrockets.org/reading-topics/reading-aloud Suggest you also observe the Forum Rules by not altering the quoted post of another. Edited January 23, 2016 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Off-topic post removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now