Why Hillary Clinton is Clearly Qualfied to be President

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

DO not know who you are GUEST, but you are going to drive some posters insane with this :)

Well done

[Guest]

No we expect it from the tea partiers here. Nothing less!

[Guest]

No we expect it from the tea partiers here. Nothing less!

And others here expect nothing to be posted to counter the credentials described by the OP Guest.

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

those aren't qualifications...those are liberal personality traits...as for anti-wall street...oh good be against the people who make money who keep people like you receiving money....smart move....

[Guest]

Wow!

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

WOW!

Some people are so creative with their imagination. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:


Other than an ever-increasing body count, Hillary's resume is quite thin:

THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html)

[Guest]

Is this a joke? or is the guest serious?

[Guest]

Is this a joke? or is the guest serious?

Sadly serious, but the OP forgets that the next election will be about issues, not personalities.

[Guest]

Most unintelligent thread on this forum, and that is a HUGE accomplishment.

[Guest]

Sadly serious, but the OP forgets that the next election will be about issues, not personalities.

Actually, you're off target in the sense that you refer to it as "personality"

The character of any President is crucial, as most recently exampled by the current incumbent's lack thereof.

Hillary Clinton's character is sadly lacking, and I think the examples I cited make that beyond reasonable dispute. I invite you to respond with evidence or examples to the contrary regarding her character (not her resume, most of which would not apply had her last name been anything other than Clinton)

[Guest]

Most unintelligent thread on this forum, and that is a HUGE accomplishment.

Most unimaginative reply I've seen on TOTV in quite a while ...

[Guest]

Most unintelligent thread on this forum, and that is a HUGE accomplishment.

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

This is from about 2/3 weeks ago


"On today’s Morning Joe on MSNBC, the panel was discussing Mitt Romney’s perceived problem regarding connecting with middle-class voters, were he to run for president next year.

But Joe Scarborough turned the discussion around to focus on the Democrats’ top contender:

“Her friends are at Davos, her friends are at Goldman Sachs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, when she said we’re not really that rich — do you know why she said that? Because everybody she hangs out with are billionaires.”
But just prior to that statement, Scarborough dropped a literary reference:

“Hillary Clinton has just as many billionaire friends, and has led over the past 25 years the most elite, the most insular, the most Gatsby-like existence of any person in the political world today.”

"Scarborough’s point is pretty clear: that Clinton’s recent lifestyle – punctuated by lucrative speaking fees - will present just as many challenges to her candidacy as it would for Romney when it comes to identifying with “the bottom 99%” of U.S. voters.

When Hillary Clinton was drawing a salary as the U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, her taxpayer-funded income would have placed her in the top 10% of Americans. Clinton also hit the speaker circuit after leaving her federal post, and earned a jaw-dropping $12 million in the next 16 months.

If that figure were prorated as an annual income of $9 million, it would put Clinton squarely in the top .1% income-bracket category – and not very far from the top .01% richest people in the nation.

It certainly didn’t help that Clinton uttered her famous “dead broke” line in an interview last year. If she officially tosses her hat in to the presidential ring, you can bet that those comments will get as much attention as Romney’s ill-fated “47%” quips did in 2012.

https://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/237914-msnbc-host-joe-scarborough-compares-hilary-clinton-literary-character-studied-high-school/

Ms Clinton is not a shoo in even for the nomination

[Guest]

Believe it or not, this is from the KOREA HERALD.....KOREA...

"f this NBC news anchor thing doesn’t work out for Brian Williams, I’ve got the perfect job for the guy:

Hillary Clinton’s press secretary.

Or better yet, as the New Commander McBragg.

The problem is that Commander McBragg is a cartoon character from the old Tennessee Tuxedo cartoon show that no one remembers. Tennessee was a penguin. Chumley was the big, fat, stupid walrus.

And McBragg was a British colonel, who would brag and brag about his war exploits, making this a perfect character for Williams to play, except, again, this business about McBragg being a cartoon.

Williams is only turning into a cartoon. He isn’t a full-fledged cartoon, yet.

So Hillary’s press secretary it is.

Can’t you just picture them, Hill and Bri, holding court in a hotel bar on the campaign trail, regaling reporters with their crazy (yet completely untrue) war stories?

Clinton can retell her lie about how she braved snipers in Bosnia, perhaps throwing in a fake laugh or two, the devil-may-care laugh of beret-wearing French resistance fighters in bad movies.

Her eyes crinkle just so and the high-pitched cackle is released and you just know it’s sincere.

[John Kass] Brian Williams, Hillary Clinton should swap war stories (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150215000290)

[Guest]

Joe Scarborough ....... scarborough - isn't he one of those Cons who predicted a landslide win for Romney. His credibility is zero.

Scarborough is as politically astute as that failed 1/2 governor from Alaska.

[Guest]

"I don’t normally like to comment on other people’s polls, but sometimes we all do things we don’t like to do. So today my attention is drawn to a Drudge Report headline that reads: SHOCK POLL: WARREN LEADS CLINTON IN IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. Remember the game, “Made Ya Look”? I did.

The polls in question were conducted by the very reputable online firm named YouGov, which polls for among others, The Economist. Having been engaged in online polling since 1999, I am a big fan of YouGov and the future of our industry. Their clients were two progressive groups, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org. The results actually show that if the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary were held today, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would not defeat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in either state. Instead, the poll reveals that certain traits and policy positions that Sen. Warren represents could defeat Clinton.

Is that news? Absolutely. Is it accurate? No doubt. This is a very legitimate form of polling. We do it all the time at Zogby Analytics. To be good at what we do, we not only seek to discover what presently exists, but what could happen under certain circumstances. Like Wayne Gretsky who once noted in an interview that his edge over others was because he not only followed where the puck actually was on the ice, but anticipated where it should be next.

.........

"So the YouGov poll tells us a lot. As the poll sponsors tell us:

The results show that, after likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren’s biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79 percent say they want her to run, but, in both states, Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.

And:

After respondents hear about Warren’s positions and biography, without any negative information provided about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31 percent to 24 percent over Hillary Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30 percent to 27 percent in New Hampshire.

Make no mistake, this is a big story. At the very least, Clinton is going to have to work for the nomination. At most, Democratic voters in these two key states may be already looking for an option. But the real story is that the challenger is going to have to execute a pitch perfect campaign – and that is the hard part."

Can Elizabeth Warren Beat Hillary Clinton? Beware Of 'Shock Polls' - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2015/02/11/beware-of-the-shock-poll/)

This is very relative and certainly interesting.

[Guest]

Joe Scarborough ....... scarborough - isn't he one of those Cons who predicted a landslide win for Romney. His credibility is zero.

Scarborough is as politically astute as that failed 1/2 governor from Alaska.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

Most unintelligent thread on this forum, and that is a HUGE accomplishment.


I think the OP nailed it. I do not need to see Bitchy. I have seen enough retaliation from the POTUS since the November election.

When you are president of this great company you aren't supposed to plan revenge against the opposing party. You are supposed to take advice from your staff, consult with experts, take it to Congress, and keep calm and carry on.

[Guest]

I think the OP nailed it. I do not need to see Bitchy. I have seen enough retaliation from the POTUS since the November election.

When you are president of this great company you aren't supposed to plan revenge against the opposing party. You are supposed to take advice from your staff, consult with experts, take it to Congress, and keep calm and carry on.


Whoops. Meant president of this great country. Not being able to edit is a downer.

[Guest]

"What difference does it make"?

[Guest]

I will never forget the day I asked Hillary if she was all right! She looked exhausted!! If looks could kill, believe me, I would be dead! I was told later (by a reliable source that I trust) that there was probably another reason for it.

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

I met the Secret Service Agent who is referenced in point #1 and mentioned in the referenced book . As he said to me while standing in his driveway : " You have to be willing to lay down your life and make your wife a widow and your children fatherless . I quickly concluded that I could not do so for this person but I would have done so for anyone of the Bush family " .

Also I had dealings directly with Sen. Clinton and members of her senior staff . I`ll just leave it at that . On the other hand I also had many dealings directly with Sen. Schumer and his staff .
I never met a harder working public servant and a better staff than Sen. Schumer and his staff .

[Guest]

I met the Secret Service Agent who is referenced in point #1 and mentioned in the referenced book . As he said to me while standing in his driveway : " You have to be willing to lay down your life and make your wife a widow and your children fatherless . I quickly concluded that I could not do so for this person but I would have done so for anyone of the Bush family " .

Also I had dealings directly with Sen. Clinton and members of her senior staff . I`ll just leave it at that . On the other hand I also had many dealings directly with Sen. Schumer and his staff .
I never met a harder working public servant and a better staff than Sen. Schumer and his staff .


This is the biggest bunch of BS yet. Secret Service agents don't get to choose who they want to protect based on politics or personality. They either do the job they were hired to do or find other employment.

[Guest]

This is the biggest bunch of BS yet. Secret Service agents don't get to choose who they want to protect based on politics or personality. They either do the job they were hired to do or find other employment.

I'm afraid you are missing the point again... Read the book and open your eyes about Hillary. She is apparently a genuine shrew, and in my opinion, actually somewhat imbalanced based on the reports of the people who see her up close and personal, vs the polished media version.

The agents are also quite complimentary about Obama on a personal level (ie decent guy) and especially so regarding the two girls being polite and well mannered.

Here's a link to the book on Amazon: (click the icon)

The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents: Ronald Kessler: 9780804139212: Amazon.com: Books

[Guest]

One big qualification was left out: She can support and promote the entitlement mentality as well or better than any other candidate.

[Guest]

One big qualification was left out: She can support and promote the entitlement mentality as well or better than any other candidate.

Yesiree I can see it now....if you think you have had it good the last 8 years (barf) wait until I get in office....then you will know you are being taken care of every day........:$:

[Guest]

One big qualification was left out: She can support and promote the entitlement mentality as well or better than any other candidate.

If by entitlement mentality you mean Hilary will protect Social Security and Medicare, I say bring it on. This is so much better than the republican plan to privatize social security and turn medicare into a voucher plan; see Ryan budget.

[Guest]

If by entitlement mentality you mean Hilary will protect Social Security and Medicare, I say bring it on. This is so much better than the republican plan to privatize social security and turn medicare into a voucher plan; see Ryan budget.

No one is opposed to SS or Medicare so stop waving that bogeyman flag.

However, food stamps doubling on Obama's watch, giving benefits and even tax rebates to illegal aliens etc ... maybe even a liberal can begin to recognize excess?

We're broke ... wake up and try to be adult about it. We need a balanced budget amendment ... with an emphasis on spending reductions.

[Guest]

Some day those who view SS as an entitlement need to please tell us why they think that.

When I draw money from my savings at the bank would that be called an entitlement as well?

Of course not. They both contain my money.

I suppose there is an stretch ambiguity.......it is my money and I am entitled to it.....very, VERY strectch

[Guest]

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/272252/) Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/)

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-call-off-the-dogs.html?_r=0

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1Kbcezv) ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/concerns-over-gulf-donations-clinton-foundation-as-hillary-mulls-2016-race-583130.html)
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

[Guest]

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1Kbcezv) ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/concerns-over-gulf-donations-clinton-foundation-as-hillary-mulls-2016-race-583130.html)
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

I am not a big fan of oblique or indirect or between the lines messaging, but this one is a prize winner.....the only thing left out is what I consider to be her identifying comment on how she thinks (or does not).......

'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

[Guest]

I am not a big fan of oblique or indirect or between the lines messaging, but this one is a prize winner.....the only thing left out is what I consider to be her identifying comment on how she thinks (or does not).......

'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

[Guest]

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1Kbcezv) ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com (http://www.arabianbusiness.com/concerns-over-gulf-donations-clinton-foundation-as-hillary-mulls-2016-race-583130.html)
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

That's a classic!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

I will never understand why some just have to always, ALWAYS spew a negative snipe. You have absolutely no grounds to doubt whether one knows or not. Very rude and derogatory and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Anyway here is the answer; to get the perspective it goes back to more than just the question. So here is the dialogue starting with Johnsons question ultimately leading to her what difference does it make response:

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now that I have passed the security question may I procede?

This is a classic post by someone who has no intentions what so ever to carry on a legitimate discussion. Starting with the challenging "I doubt it" snipe. And then the other classic of name calling. ANd the referral to George Bush adds what value?

It is either follow the party or get ready for the discourteous catharsis. No added value to the discussion.

A don't engage candidate!

[Guest]

Personally I am waiting for someone to spin this email scandal. As of now not one dem has tried to defend these actions. And she of course has yet to respond, but at some point I would think she would have to. I hope her response isn't "What difference at this point does it make".

[Guest]

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

Well one difference is, according to one of the (illegally maintained private emails recently discovered ) HRC knew it was a terrorist attack within 4 minutes. No biggie because even a village idiot could figure that out

[Guest]

What Hillary Clinton possesses is name recognition only. Hillary has not even opened her campaign officially and we already have deep and disturbing problems with the Clinton Foundation which was accepting money from Qatar and Algeria and god knows who else while Secretary of State, and during that time exclusively used only private e-mails subjecting her to cyber spying by our enemies. Recall The Riadas, Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the vanish Rose Law Firms billing records, a killing in cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon.

Hillary pushed the reset with Russia and Hillary said after four American were murdered n Benghazi "what difference does it make. Hillary traveled exclusively while Secretary of State on the dole and did nothing but unethically feather her nest for a run once again for president. Its one thing to be an opportunist its quick another to do it taking ethical shortcuts and leaving a trail of controversies in your wake. Simply stated the Clintons are master manipulators who can't hide how greedy they really are.

As an side I believe the next president must possess great political courage, impeccable reputation free from scandal, highly ethical, intestinal fortitude, time served in the military and a uniter.

Unfortunately the Democrats only hope is Hillary purely because of name recognition. The Republicans are also hurting for a quality candidate.

I did believe that of all the candidates thus far Mitt Romney at least demonstrated high ethics and morality, an proven leadership ability a way to turn this non responsive economy around and he was correct on many of the foreign issues that arose in the last election. Perhaps America missed an opportunity. I do pray that voters become more serious and more engaged in this election skipping the headlines and digging into the details of candidates promises

[Guest]

and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
!

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA. :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA. :coolsmiley:

You obviously do not have a choice as she is the presumed dem candidate. And for thos who are party is all that matters oriented, your choice is made for you. And if she bombs out like she did in 2008 you will be touting whoever it is that survives the fallout like Obama did. So there is no assurance she has the candidate of the party's choice locked up....no different than 2008.

What I think the dems have going against them in 2016?
Hillary Clinton's past.
Obama's past.
I personally do not believe the dems will carry the same following as in 2008 and 2012 regarding blacks and hispanics. The one's who are not in line for hand outs or dedicated to a black candidate are not exactly jumping for joy art Clinton.
Add to that the large percentage of republicans who satyed home in 2008 and 2012 will not dare do so again after seeing what doing has done to the politics of this country and the world.

Just to embellish a couple of points of significance that did not exist in the previous two elections.

Clinto just like 2008 will be over shadowed by somebody that is more current and perhaps respected than she is. She is nothing more than politics as usual.
Another lawyer who knows how to use, abuse or hide behind the law. And only understands one language "Clinton Politics".

Remember back in 2006/2007...she was the shoe in dem candidate....and then out of no where (literally) a total unkown from Illinois was able to knock her off her perch. And given all the controversy and past and not to mention no qualifications that clouded him .........he did it.

She is MORE vulnerable this time from both sides of the aisle.
She brings nothing new to the party and only politics as usual.

I think a lot of we the people (that is a non party specific group) have had just about enough of that!

[Guest]

Clinton email policy violated Obama administration guidance - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/04/clinton-email-policy-violated-obama-administration-guidance/21149727/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D622800)

WOW! Now the president is saying that Mrs Clinton clearly violated his administration guidelines of transparency by not using the government email system.

Hilary might as well just drop out now.

[Guest]

Clinton email policy violated Obama administration guidance - AOL.com (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/04/clinton-email-policy-violated-obama-administration-guidance/21149727/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D622800)

WOW! Now the president is saying that Mrs Clinton clearly violated his administration guidelines of transparency by not using the government email system.

Hilary might as well just drop out now.

Send the old bag to prison like Martha Stewart.

[Guest]

Send the old bag to prison like Martha Stewart.

Progress:ho:

[Guest]

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.


I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA. :coolsmiley:

Are you sure? Hilary may end up in prison ... ie really.

Hillary apparently sent and read thousands of classified emails on her "private" email system. If true all kinds of problems stem from this. For example, it's highly likely numerous hostile foreign intelligence services penetrated her emails. Oops.

Hillary also ran her private email on a private server running in her home --WTF !!!!!! A reasonable inference is she didn't want anyone to know what she was doing or saying as Secretary of State, while conducting official business. Violation of Federal records act ... oops another felony.

The smartest woman in the world has fatally damaged her candidacy.

[Guest]

Didn't Sarah Palin do the same thing when she was governor of Alaska?

[Guest]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz

[Guest]

Didn't Sarah Palin do the same thing when she was governor of Alaska?

I don't recall Palin serving as Secretary of State dealing with classified info but, of course if she did, then that makes the various criminal violations knowingly committed by Hillary perfectly ok

[Guest]

I think this best explains why the Democrat mainstream media has all of a sudden unloaded on Hillary

"Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative
The angst among Democrats suggests that opportunities remain for other candidates despite Clinton’s lead in early polls."

Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1M7e7c9)

[Guest]

Comcast owns NBC which includes HBO in their family. HBO (Hollywood) intentionally made very unflattering movie about Sarah Palin's run as vice president in 2012. If you look on their listings today 2015 they still list this movie separately on their menu How petty and hateful can you be. It is this same attitude that has widely divided the nation and many of us need to grow up

[Guest]

Comcast owns NBC which includes HBO in their family. HBO (Hollywood) intentionally made very unflattering movie about Sarah Palin's run as vice president in 2012. If you look on their listings today 2015 they still list this movie separately on their menu How petty and hateful can you be. It is this same attitude that has widely divided the nation and many of us need to grow up
Time Warner owns HBO. Also not sure if the movie was intentionally unflattering or just factual.

[Guest]

I think this best explains why the Democrat mainstream media has all of a sudden unloaded on Hillary

"Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative
The angst among Democrats suggests that opportunities remain for other candidates despite Clinton’s lead in early polls."

Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1M7e7c9)

Democrats seeking alternatives - it's about time!!

[Guest]

Time Warner owns HBO. Also not sure if the movie was intentionally unflattering or just factual.

My guess is you know the answer quite well ... the former not the latter

But, in any event , this thread is about Hillarys manifestly obvious qualifications to be President so we should get back on topic

[Guest]

I think this best explains why the Democrat mainstream media has all of a sudden unloaded on Hillary

"Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative
The angst among Democrats suggests that opportunities remain for other candidates despite Clinton’s lead in early polls."

Amid Clinton controversies, Democrats seek alternative - The Washington Post (http://wapo.st/1M7e7c9)

It's heartening to see how many posters on this forum are concerned about making sure Democrats get exactly the right candidate to win in 2016. Rest assured that this election will be about the issues. May the best candidate win.

[Guest]

It's heartening to see how many posters on this forum are concerned about making sure Democrats get exactly the right candidate to win in 2016. Rest assured that this election will be about the issues. May the best candidate win.

Since its manifestly obvious that Hillary did absolutely nothing to bring this on herself, and since she is never responsible for shady dealings like this, I can only conclude this is yet again the work of a vast right wing conspiracy

[Guest]

Since its manifestly obvious that Hillary did absolutely nothing to bring this on herself, and since she is never responsible for shady dealings like this, I can only conclude this is yet again the work of a vast right wing conspiracy

Why would Hilary Clinton give a hoot what any republican thinks? They were never going to vote for her regardless what she does. Republicans should concentrate on finding the strongest candidate to run against her.

[Guest]

This Political Talk will dry up and disappear once we have a Republican President and Congress in 2016. Life in the USA will be perfect. There won't be anyone to criticize. The perfect democracy with a one party system. Just like China.

[Guest]

A vote for HRC only confirms the lack of morality in the democrat party. The typical democrat voter couldn't care less about a candidate's character as long as they can win. HRC is your typical elitist democrat politician that cares nothing about the middle class, and thinks she is above the law.

[Guest]

A vote for HRC only confirms the lack of morality in the democrat party. The typical democrat voter couldn't care less about a candidate's character as long as they can win. HRC is your typical elitist democrat politician that cares nothing about the middle class, and thinks she is above the law.

Could say the same thing about the Republican Party. A party inundated with selfishness, racism, and bigotry. So let's just continue with your name calling and see how this rolls out. There is no way your uber right wing tea party controlled conservatives can win on a national front. The way you control congress is through bought and paid for state representatives creating your local gerrymandered districts. All part of the insidious right wing conspiracy .

[Guest]

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA. :coolsmiley:

That pretty much sums up what a democrat really thinks. they don't care about their military people, or their fellow man. It's really all about them.

[Guest]

Could say the same thing about the Republican Party. A party inundated with selfishness, racism, and bigotry. So let's just continue with your name calling and see how this rolls out. There is no way your uber right wing tea party controlled conservatives can win on a national front. The way you control congress is through bought and paid for state representatives creating your local gerrymandered districts. All part of the insidious right wing conspiracy .

You may be right about the tea party. They stand for responsibility, self reliance, and morality. Things that no longer resonate in this country full of takers and moochers.

[Guest]

You may be right about the tea party. They stand for responsibility, self reliance, and morality. Things that no longer resonate in this country full of takers and moochers.

Your twisted demented view of what's right for the country that is really what's wrong. You lost the civil war, get over it!

[Guest]

Your twisted demented view of what's right for the country that is really what's wrong. You lost the civil war, get over it!

Good one! Actually the tea party, under The auspices of the KKK, kept the white man in dominance through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow until the black (Pun intended) days of the sixties and seventies. Ah how they long for the "good old days".

[Guest]

Good one! Actually the tea party, under The auspices of the KKK, kept the white man in dominance through violence, intimidation, and Jim Crow until the black (Pun intended) days of the sixties and seventies. Ah how they long for the "good old days".

YIKES! A good reminder why NOT to post after boozing it up! :rant-rave:

[Guest]

Hillary's "missing" 3 MONTHS of emails from her server apparently. Something smells fishy...

And Obama claims he didn't know about her private email account(s) until the news broke? Really? Years of emails back and forth and he NEVER wondered why her email was coming from a private (non-government) address?

Sounds like ANOTHER scandal in the "most transparent" administration ever.

[Guest]

Hillary's "missing" 3 MONTHS of emails from her server apparently. Something smells fishy...

And Obama claims he didn't know about her private email account(s) until the news broke? Really? Years of emails back and forth and he NEVER wondered why her email was coming from a private (non-government) address?

Sounds like ANOTHER scandal in the "most transparent" administration ever.

At some point the level of lying and deception becomes too much even for the most obtuse and fanatical liberal to swallow

[Guest]

At some point the level of lying and deception becomes too much even for the most obtuse and fanatical liberal to swallow

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820)


Flashback to 2007; remember when five million emails were lost at George Bush's White House? Fun times.

[Guest]

Your twisted demented view of what's right for the country that is really what's wrong. You lost the civil war, get over it!

In addition to your post making no sense (as usual) you're stuck in the wrong century

[Guest]

BREAKING NEWS: Hillary REFUSES to hand over server to an outside third party!

She says, "Trust me, the only emails I deleted were private!"

THIS IS A COVER-UP!!!!!

[Guest]

BREAKING NEWS: Hillary REFUSES to hand over server to an outside third party!

She says, "Trust me, the only emails I deleted were private!"

THIS IS A COVER-UP!!!!!

Yes, who in the world could possibly object to trusting Hillary Clinton?? 😄

Surely the Dems can do better that this pathetic fraud?

[Guest]

FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820)


Flashback to 2007; remember when five million emails were lost at George Bush's White House? Fun times.

Flash forward to the present ... the issue is about installing a private server in your bedroom upon which to then conduct official government business. WTF???

Even though you can never admit it on TOTV, you know you would never buy a used car from this woman. She makes Nixon look trustworthy.

[Guest]

Yes, who in the world could possibly object to trusting Hillary Clinton?? 😄

Surely the Dems can do better that this pathetic fraud?


Dems could, but who is better positioned to kick every republican candidates butt? In a poll out today, Hilary leads Scott Walker in his home state of Wisconsin by nine points.

[Guest]

Dems could, but who is better positioned to kick every republican candidates butt? In a poll out today, Hilary leads Scott Walker in his home state of Wisconsin by nine points.

i can't remember ... 20 months before the 2008 election, by how many points was a little known democrat challenger from Illinois leading the likely Republican ? Polls at this point don't mean much

Actually I'm a little worried now Hildebeast may be tarnished and cast aside by the Dems for a younger woman. I want Walker to run against Hillary.

[Guest]

Flash forward to the present ... the issue is about installing a private server in your bedroom upon which to then conduct official government business. WTF???

Even though you can never admit it on TOTV, you know you would never buy a used car from this woman. She makes Nixon look trustworthy.

Anyone else see her "mood" change on a dime and she gets a "nasty witch" look when she gets directly challenged by a reporter? You don't have to be a psychiatrist to see her anger seething below her drooping, wrinkly jowls.

I thought I saw this years ago but my suspicion was confirmed when I read this book from an officer who carried the nuclear football for Clinton. The author said EVERYONE universally hated/despised Mrs. Clinton because she treated everyone so poorly. She routinely and publicly berated subordinate staff and employees. Even her personal staff routinely HID from her! This lady is not befitting the office.


Dereliction of Duty: Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security: Robert Patterson: 9780895260604: Amazon.com: Books

[Guest]

Anyone else see her "mood" change on a dime and she gets a "nasty witch" look when she gets directly challenged by a reporter? You don't have to be a psychiatrist to see her anger seething below her drooping, wrinkly jowls.

I thought I saw this years ago but my suspicion was confirmed when I read this book from an officer who carried the nuclear football for Clinton. The author said EVERYONE universally hated/despised Mrs. Clinton because she treated everyone so poorly. She routinely and publicly berated subordinate staff and employees. Even her personal staff routinely HID from her! This lady is not befitting the office.


Dereliction of Duty: Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security: Robert Patterson: 9780895260604: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603)

My husband and I both were amazed at how quickly she lost her cool - obviously has not learned anything from her husband. Can't imagine this woman leading our country - she may actually do a worse job than our current community organizer, if that is even possible.

[Guest]

My husband and I both were amazed at how quickly she lost her cool - obviously has not learned anything from her husband. Can't imagine this woman leading our country - she may actually do a worse job than our current community organizer, if that is even possible.

I don't think it's possible. Obama will go down as THE WORST president in history. Kinda too bad as he's now polluted the water for any other black person as totally incompetent.

When he fist-bumped and chest-bumped other world leaders is when I stopped paying attention.

[Guest]

Anyone else see her "mood" change on a dime and she gets a "nasty witch" look when she gets directly challenged by a reporter? You don't have to be a psychiatrist to see her anger seething below her drooping, wrinkly jowls.

I thought I saw this years ago but my suspicion was confirmed when I read this book from an officer who carried the nuclear football for Clinton. The author said EVERYONE universally hated/despised Mrs. Clinton because she treated everyone so poorly. She routinely and publicly berated subordinate staff and employees. Even her personal staff routinely HID from her! This lady is not befitting the office.


Dereliction of Duty: Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security: Robert Patterson: 9780895260604: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Eyewitness-Compromised-Americas/dp/0895260603)

Drooping, wrinkly jowls...really? This is so amusing coming from the party whose last two nominees, John McCain and Mitt Romney, are older than Hilary Clinton, and the party that thinks Sarah Palin could be president. You betcha.

[Guest]

Drooping, wrinkly jowls...really?

I'm all ears if that was a mis-characterization.

Hillary HAS drooping, wrinkly jowls... you just need to come to grips that your pin-up girl is now a pin-up Great Grand-Ma!

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

I'm all ears if that was a mis-characterization.

Hillary HAS drooping, wrinkly jowls... you just need to come to grips that your pin-up girl is now a pin-up Great Grand-Ma!

:1rotfl:


Another intelligent, well researched post by someone who spends all their time rolling on the floor, laughing their butts off. Please pile on. Every post like this will encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of women to head to the polls. Would love to hear an explanation why a women is not qualified to be president.

[Guest]

Another intelligent, well researched post by someone who spends all their time rolling on the floor, laughing their butts off. Please pile on. Every post like this will encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of women to head to the polls. Would love to hear an explanation why a women is not qualified to be president.

You seem VERY sensitive. You also seem to not be able to acknowledge REALITY. Your sweetheart Hillary is old and has drooping, wrinkly jowls. I don't think an objective observer would argue that Hillary has drooping, wrinkly jowls.

How you connected that with "a woman" is not qualified to be president is a typical liberal emotional outburst to an affront of some sort.

See, I'm saving you countless therapy dollars! :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Another intelligent, well researched post by someone who spends all their time rolling on the floor, laughing their butts off. Please pile on. Every post like this will encourage hundreds, if not thousands, of women to head to the polls. Would love to hear an explanation why a women is not qualified to be president.

You need to get real about this ... no one is saying women are not qualified to be president. That's a total red herring. Just think we can find MANY other qualified women -- And who are honest and trustworthy which Hildebeast is not

We're you satisfied by her press conference today?

[Guest]

Does anyone know if Hillary paid all the costs of her private server on her nickel, or did she charge back the costs to State Dept. ??

[Guest]

Does anyone know if Hillary paid all the costs of her private server on her nickel, or did she charge back the costs to State Dept. ??

Cost of a server and the maintenance would be peanuts... There are bigger fish to worry about

[Guest]

Does anyone know if Hillary paid all the costs of her private server on her nickel, or did she charge back the costs to State Dept. ??


Hilary Clinton said at her press conference yesterday that the private server was set up for President Clinton. Ex-presidents get an allowance from the government for their offices and related expenses.

[Guest]

Cost of a server and the maintenance would be peanuts... There are bigger fish to worry about

You're missing the point ... if the USG reimbursed and paid the bill, there is much clearer legal authority by which to subpoena records and confiscate the server

[Guest]

You're missing the point ... if the USG reimbursed and paid the bill, there is much clearer legal authority by which to subpoena records and confiscate the server

The point is it is a private server on private property.

[Guest]

The point is it is a private server on private property.

BUT... she was conducting official government business on her "private server" and therein lies the issue. Hillary deleted 32,000 "private" emails. All official emails MUST be archived. There's a roughly 3-month period where there are NO emails. What happened to them?

She said she wrote to other government employees and they're archived so she complied. That's ridiculous on its face. How does an archivist obtain all of her official emails?...search thousands of employees email accounts looking for correspondence from Hillary?

Finally, how do we know her server was not hacked? If you were a foreign government wouldn't her emails to and from the president, military, other government officials be of interest? Wouldn't they perhaps glean great information about our foreign policy, negotiating position, alliances, etc...?

[Guest]

BUT... she was conducting official government business on her "private server" and therein lies the issue. Hillary deleted 32,000 "private" emails. All official emails MUST be archived. There's a roughly 3-month period where there are NO emails. What happened to them?

She said she wrote to other government employees and they're archived so she complied. That's ridiculous on its face. How does an archivist obtain all of her official emails?...search thousands of employees email accounts looking for correspondence from Hillary?

Finally, how do we know her server was not hacked? If you were a foreign government wouldn't her emails to and from the president, military, other government officials be of interest? Wouldn't they perhaps glean great information about our foreign policy, negotiating position, alliances, etc...?



Two Names The Press Omits From Email Coverage: Colin Powell And Jeb Bush | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/11/two-names-the-press-omits-from-email-coverage-c/202847)

All good questions, and now Jeb Bush wants to get into the act by announcing he did the exact same thing as Hilary by using a private server and hand selecting which emails were released.

How many GOP candidates are there? Like 17? Does this mean that the public has to read through thousands of emails from a dozen candidates? Fun times.

[Guest]

Two Names The Press Omits From Email Coverage: Colin Powell And Jeb Bush | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/11/two-names-the-press-omits-from-email-coverage-c/202847)

All good questions, and now Jeb Bush wants to get into the act by announcing he did the exact same thing as Hilary by using a private server and hand selecting which emails were released.

How many GOP candidates are there? Like 17? Does this mean that the public has to read through thousands of emails from a dozen candidates? Fun times.

Interesting...

But... Jeb and the other candidates are not under investigation. Sec of State Clinton is under Congressional investigation over her role/handling of the Benghazi attack on our embassy and all of her official emails have been subpoena'd. This is really the crux of this email server "issue".

[Guest]

Things are heating up for Hillary:


"The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state."


AP sues State Department, seeking access to Clinton records | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/11/ap-sues-state-department-seeking-access-to-clinton-records/)

[Guest]

Mrs Clinton: I did not send classified e-mail out from my account

Mr. Clinton, I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky

Hillary established her private server the day she took oath as Secretary of state. This was paid for by taxpayers and was used to conduct the people's business.

Yet Hillary took it up herself to conceal these e-mails and when forced to do so had her people release only what she wanted the public to have access to.

She doesn't get to this on her terms. Her server was likely hacked. Her server has the answers to many questions that have not been answered.

Nixon's secretary only wiped away 18 minutes of tape and lost his job

Hillary's Democrats to their shame will come to her assistance defending this lie and we Americans are the worse for it

[Guest]

The point is it is a private server on private property.

Your point, in this instance, is a perfect example of being Clintonian. We would expect nothing less.

[Guest]

I don't know how anyone could respect this woman. She and her husband have zero integrity.

[Guest]

To the poster you have got to be kidding me do you remember history at all.

[Guest]

In a poll released yesterday, Hilary Clinton leads Gov Scott Walker in his home state of Wisconsin by 52% to 43%. Walker also trails both VP Biden and Sen Elizabeth Warren in the same poll.


Clinton leads Walker in Wisconsin - Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/03/clinton-leads-walker-in-wisconsin.html)

[Guest]

In a poll released yesterday, Hilary Clinton leads Gov Scott Walker in his home state of Wisconsin by 52% to 43%. Walker also trails both VP Biden and Sen Elizabeth Warren in the same poll.


Clinton leads Walker in Wisconsin - Public Policy Polling (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/03/clinton-leads-walker-in-wisconsin.html)

I'm pretty sure those poll results are before Hillary gets indicted for violation of the Federal Records Act and using classified information on a non-accredited "private" home server

[Guest]

I'm pretty sure those poll results are before Hillary gets indicted for violation of the Federal Records Act and using classified information on a non-accredited "private" home server


Rest assured, that ain't never happening. Colin Powell and Condi Rice did exactly the same thing. As have numerous other politicians.

This isn't the smoking gun you'd like it to be.

[Guest]

R
This isn't the smoking gun ...

I have a few questions:

If there's no smoking gun, meaning there's nothing to hide, then why didn't Hillary simply hand over the server to an INDEPENDENT and NEUTRAL third party and let that third party sort the private/work emails?

Once the work emails are separated from the private, Hillary is free to delete them and the public will never see them.

By refusing this request for a third party, and by already deleting some 32,000 emails Hillary deemed private, it sure gives an appearance of impropriety, does it not? Is her handling of this in keeping with a transparent Obama administration? Would this be indicative of her administration if she became president?

Finally, can you HONESTLY say this is the way you would like to see this type of "situation" handled?

[Guest]

Rest assured, that ain't never happening. Colin Powell and Condi Rice did exactly the same thing. As have numerous other politicians.

This isn't the smoking gun you'd like it to be.

By saying Powell and Rice did "exactly the same thing" makes it abundantly clear you literally have no idea of what you're talking about

[Guest]

By saying Powell and Rice did "exactly the same thing" makes it abundantly clear you literally have no idea of what you're talking about

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

I have a few questions:

If there's no smoking gun, meaning there's nothing to hide, then why didn't Hillary simply hand over the server to an INDEPENDENT and NEUTRAL third party and let that third party sort the private/work emails?

Once the work emails are separated from the private, Hillary is free to delete them and the public will never see them.

By refusing this request for a third party, and by already deleting some 32,000 emails Hillary deemed private, it sure gives an appearance of impropriety, does it not? Is her handling of this in keeping with a transparent Obama administration? Would this be indicative of her administration if she became president?

Finally, can you HONESTLY say this is the way you would like to see this type of "situation" handled?



Hilary said yesterday at the press conference that the server was set up for President Clinton, so wouldn't handing over the server give a third party access to the president's records? Once this information was turned over, it would be just a matter of time until the National Inquirer would be publishing all kinds of garbage. What do people think are in Hilary's emails that is so earth-shattering?

[Guest]

By saying Powell and Rice did "exactly the same thing" makes it abundantly clear you literally have no idea of what you're talking about

Perfect. Another hit and run. If you have some information, spit it out.

[Guest]

Hilary said yesterday at the press conference that the server was set up for President Clinton, so wouldn't handing over the server give a third party access to the president's records? Once this information was turned over, it would be just a matter of time until the National Inquirer would be publishing all kinds of garbage. What do people think are in Hilary's emails that is so earth-shattering?

Bill Clinton, it's been reported, sent only two emails during his ENTIRE presidency.

I have no idea what's in her emails that she's so concerned about. Why not just hand them over and be done with it? It sure leads to an awful lot of speculation by reporters, politicians, those investigating her, and ordinary citizens of BOTH political parties. Nearly all the major news organizations are unsympathetic to her answers at yesterday's news conference. If there's nothing to hide, why create this artificial "scandal"? IF she's innocent, what does she gain by having this huge and ongoing controversy? How has she helped her case for being transparent?

[Guest]

Bill Clinton, it's been reported, sent only two emails during his ENTIRE presidency.

I have no idea what's in her emails that she's so concerned about. Why not just hand them over and be done with it? It sure leads to an awful lot of speculation by reporters, politicians, those investigating her, and ordinary citizens of BOTH political parties. Nearly all the major news organizations are unsympathetic to her answers at yesterday's news conference. If there's nothing to hide, why create this artificial "scandal"? IF she's innocent, what does she gain by having this huge and ongoing controversy? How has she helped her case for being transparent?

Hilary Clinton said yesterday that she deleted her personal emails, so how does she hand over stuff that's been deleted? The other emails (55,000 pages) have been turned over to the State Department, and they will release them as soon as they declassify them.

Isn't it possible that Bill Clinton used the server for work other than emails; such as material about the Clinton Foundation?

[Guest]

If Hillary refuses to be forthright about turning over emails when she was sec of state, I can only imagine what a secretive, locked down administration she would create if she were to become president. This is not a great way to enter national politics, in my humble opinion.

Hardcore voters on the left and right will favor or oppose her regardless. What decides elections is those less ideologically committed swing voters in the middle. I can't imagine her secretive demeanor and refusal to allow a neutral third party to view the emails will help her candidacy. I believe it's an entirely reasonable request that she's refusing, and I think it will give many voters cause for concern. It just doesn't smell right.

[Guest]

Hilary Clinton said yesterday that she deleted her personal emails, so how does she hand over stuff that's been deleted? The other emails (55,000 pages) have been turned over to the State Department, and they will release them as soon as they declassify them.

Isn't it possible that Bill Clinton used the server for work other than emails; such as material about the Clinton Foundation?

Whoever installed those servers, no doubt installed BACKUP servers.

Personally I think you're "warm" with regards to the Clinton Foundation and its donors, but I think you're incorrect with regard to the gender.

[Guest]

If Hillary refuses to be forthright about turning over emails when she was sec of state, I can only imagine what a secretive, locked down administration she would create if she were to become president. This is not a great way to enter national politics, in my humble opinion.

Hardcore voters on the left and right will favor or oppose her regardless. What decides elections is those less ideologically committed swing voters in the middle. I can't imagine her secretive demeanor and refusal to allow a neutral third party to view the emails will help her candidacy. I believe it's an entirely reasonable request that she's refusing, and I think it will give many voters cause for concern. It just doesn't smell right.

Do not worry your old grey head about it any further. Sec. Clinton will be the next President of the USA for 8 years.

Just get outside, play golf, enjoy a Happy Hour now and then, and be content living in The Villages knowing your country is being managed by a fine woman.

[Guest]

Do not worry your old grey head about it any further. Sec. Clinton will be the next President of the USA for 8 years.

Just get outside, play golf, enjoy a Happy Hour now and then, and be content living in The Villages knowing your country is being managed by a fine woman.


Absolutely right. Remember, if you can, that you are now in the minority. The voting blocks that are being catered to are women, African-Americans, Hispanics, voters under age 35, gay/lesbian - most of this block is Liberal, social minded, and do not want to be lectured to by (nothing derogatory meant, just descriptive) old white men who have made careers out of politics.

Get used to it.

[Guest]

trailer, hillary the movie. - Bing Videos (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trailer%2c+hillary+the+movie.&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=501CDE9AF248E2728060501CDE9AF248E2728060)

[Guest]

trailer, hillary the movie. - Bing Videos (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trailer%2c+hillary+the+movie.&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=501CDE9AF248E2728060501CDE9AF248E2728060)

What a hag! :0000000000luvmyhors:0000000000luvmyhors Could you imagine be married to it? :rant-rave:

[Guest]

Absolutely right. Remember, if you can, that you are now in the minority. The voting blocks that are being catered to are women, African-Americans, Hispanics, voters under age 35, gay/lesbian - most of this block is Liberal, social minded, and do not want to be lectured to by (nothing derogatory meant, just descriptive) old white men who have made careers out of politics.

Get used to it.

That's a nice racist and derogatory comment ... We would expect nothing less from an authoritarian leftist mindset which is so perfectly exemplified in your post

[Guest]

Do not worry your old grey head about it any further. Sec. Clinton will be the next President of the USA for 8 years.

Just get outside, play golf, enjoy a Happy Hour now and then, and be content living in The Villages knowing your country is being managed by a fine woman.

"Fine woman" ... the level of denial and pretzel twisting logic you have to endure is simply amazing to watch ... ie truly. Hildebeast could rob a bank and you would no doubt find a way to rationalize it

[Guest]

Perfect. Another hit and run. If you have some information, spit it out.

The information is out there for anyone to obtain. You didn't bother to do any research and simply relied upon Dem talking points that you regurgitated back in a lemming like fashion. Then you got upset when I said you literally don't know what you're talking about, and that remains an accurate observation

[Guest]

That's a nice racist and derogatory comment ... We would expect nothing less from an authoritarian leftist mindset which is so perfectly exemplified in your post


As stated, YOU (old, white men) are the new minority. Your votes are insignificant since there are fewer left every day.

GET USED TO IT.

[Guest]

Who the hell does Clinton think she is? She doesn't have to follow Government security protocal on emails? What else is she hiding? And why should we trust her opinion on what emails should be turned over or not. She has already proven to be a sneak. How many has she sent out of the country that are not saved or backed up by our Government. Who would know what she is saying and dealing with no sensor?

The fact that she believes it is owed her astounds me...

[Guest]

I have to agree - old white men and labor unions have served their purpose and it is time to move. Personally I am looking at the likes of Rubio. Appears to be honest, young and fresh. Hillary is old news - same old, same old only in a skirt!

[Guest]

Who the hell does Clinton think she is? She doesn't have to follow Government security protocal on emails? What else is she hiding? And why should we trust her opinion on what emails should be turned over or not. She has already proven to be a sneak. How many has she sent out of the country that are not saved or backed up by our Government. Who would know what she is saying and dealing with no sensor?

The fact that she believes it is owed her astounds me...



Hillary Clinton - Latest 2014 Polls and Approval Ratings - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/p/polls/person/latest/hillary-clinton#.VQIQZLmPI5s)

Maybe because she's polling at 60% in the democratic primary and beating every possible republican contender, and 80% plus of democrats support her, would be my guess.

[Guest]

As stated, YOU (old, white men) are the new minority. Your votes are insignificant since there are fewer left every day.

GET USED TO IT.

I repeat ... your ongoing string of semi-deranged,racist rants (often incoherent ) give us all insight into why people like you, should you ever get in power, can be counted on to screw things up totally.

As I recall you live just off the coast of Venezuela ... how fitting

[Guest]

Hillary Clinton - Latest 2014 Polls and Approval Ratings - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/p/polls/person/latest/hillary-clinton#.VQIQZLmPI5s)

Maybe because she's polling at 60% in the democratic primary and beating every possible republican contender, and 80% plus of democrats support her, would be my guess.

There is no live lost between Obama and the Clintons. There is a rumor floating around that Valerie Jarrett is working behind the scenes to dethrone Hildebeast. It's interesting and has some plausibility ...it's clear HRC botched her press conference so this will be playing itself out over the next few weeks

[Guest]

I know that, for Hillaryphiles, no amount of information regarding her private email system will ever prove persuasive …

However for those who still retain an ability for assessing evidence and critical thinking, this story may be interesting to you.

A leading FOIA expert says her system was “laughable”

Freedom of Information Act expert: Clinton's email system 'laughable' - Nick Gass - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/foia-hillary-clinton-email-daniel-metcalfe-116011.html)

[Guest]

In respects to a Clinton, dont forget Bill said (I did not inhale) and I did not have sexual relation with that women) need I say more.

[Guest]

Media Adopt Double-Standard With Demands For Independent Review Of Clinton Email | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/12/media-adopt-double-standard-with-demands-for-in/202858)


Every state department employee, whether they use the government server or other server, decides for themselves what emails to save.

[Guest]

Boy, I haven't seen a single coherent argument (from a self-avowed liberal) supporting Hildebeast's email scandal.

When the libs start abandoning the beast...she's REALLY in trouble. I bet one of these hackers find the goods on her and posts it somewhere - Wikileaks?

This stinks just like the "mysterious" discovery of the Rose Law Firm billing records on top of a file cabinet IN THE WHITE HOUSE (AFTER it had already been searched!)

It's amazing how two Arkansas idiots could possibly have risen as high as they have. Well, when you consider how many low information liberals there are it starts to become clear.

[Guest]

There's that GOP hate that keeps this country's government running so well. Unbelievable the mentality of some of these people, term used looely.

[Guest]

There's that GOP hate that keeps this country's government running so well. Unbelievable the mentality of some of these people, term used looely.

I'm sorry when I first skimmed this I thought you were referring to that unfortunate but widespread medical condition known as Liberal Rage. Elizabeth Warren or Howard Deaniac comes to mind.

[Guest]

Media Adopt Double-Standard With Demands For Independent Review Of Clinton Email | Research | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/12/media-adopt-double-standard-with-demands-for-in/202858)


Every state department employee, whether they use the government server or other server, decides for themselves what emails to save.

In reading the link you cite, which is produced by genuine nutjob David Brock , it's amazing to see the long list of liberal media types now gunning for Hildebeast. I hope she can survive this ( for selfish reasons)

The policy is USG wide but does not allow employees to set up private servers in private bedrooms with the obvious intent of evading the law. This is not a complex topic -- She acted dishonestly and violated numerous laws.

[Guest]

Absolutely right. Remember, if you can, that you are now in the minority. The voting blocks that are being catered to are women, African-Americans, Hispanics, voters under age 35, gay/lesbian - most of this block is Liberal, social minded, and do not want to be lectured to by (nothing derogatory meant, just descriptive) old white men who have made careers out of politics.

Get used to it.

Lou is here.

[Guest]

Lou is here.


Lou seems to have a hang up on “old white men” … I’m starting to get more insights into his animus and resentments. I’m wondering if he’s transgendered or something as he seems angry.

[Guest]

If he isn't here he should be. The tea party wackos are here in force!

[Guest]

Lou is here.

If he isn't here he should be. The tea party wackos are here in force!

All the same ones that assured us, without a doubt, it would be a landslide victory for Mitt Romney in 2012.

[Guest]

All the same ones that assured us, without a doubt, it would be a landslide victory for Mitt Romney in 2012.

Last time I checked, the subject of this thread is Hildebeast's qualifications to become president ... you guys keep changing the subject especially since her botched press conference

[Guest]

If he isn't here he should be. The tea party wackos are here in force!

Removing the highlighted word turns it to be completely accurate.

[Guest]

An Open Letter to hdr22@clintonemail.com

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/opinion/sunday/maureen-dowd-an-open-letter-to-hdr22clintonemailcom.html?_r=0&referrer

[Guest]

In twitter burst, Hillary Clinton slams GOP for working (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-slam-gop-against-women-twitter-116114.html)


Hillary Clinton has taken on the GOP and the way they have handled the Loretta Lynch nomination to be attorney general. No other AG nominee in the history of this country has waited four months to be confirmed by the senate.

This is not a republican issue or a democratic issue, this is a civil rights issue, and it's time for women across the country to organize and demand better. We need marches from Maine to California, from Washington to Florida.

[Guest]

In twitter burst, Hillary Clinton slams GOP for working (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-slam-gop-against-women-twitter-116114.html)


Hillary Clinton has taken on the GOP and the way they have handled the Loretta Lynch nomination to be attorney general. No other AG nominee in the history of this country has waited four months to be confirmed by the senate.

This is not a republican issue or a democratic issue, this is a civil rights issue, and it's time for women across the country to organize and demand better. We need marches from Maine to California, from Washington to Florida.

I think this is totally wrong (my opinion).
I think congress is stalling/taling it's time/call it what you will.....to assure we do not get another Holder/racist in the position.
It has nothning to do with the fact she is a woman.

And does anybody think Clinton is playing the gender card? It may be the only positive she has left in her dirty laundry bag of tricks.

[Guest]

The Right-Wing Media's Nonsense Attacks On Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch | Blog | Media Matters for America (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/16/the-right-wing-medias-nonsense-attacks-on-attor/202886)


Read these right wing media attacks against Federal Prosecutor Loretta Lynch. In several cases, these attacks are against a completely different Loretta Lynch. So much for getting the facts correct.

[Guest]

I think this is totally wrong (my opinion).
I think congress is stalling/taling it's time/call it what you will.....to assure we do not get another Holder/racist in the position.
It has nothning to do with the fact she is a woman.

And does anybody think Clinton is playing the gender card? It may be the only positive she has left in her dirty laundry bag of tricks.


So it's not a gender issue, it's a race issue? Do you really want to go there?

And who thinks women's health issues are a game of cards? Who will be more supportive of women's health issues and a woman's right to choose? Certainly not some republican man.

It's time for women to organize and march again like it is the 1960's all over again.

[Guest]

Can't believe the voters could be so stubie.

[Guest]

I cannot the voters could be so stupid. The other half will vote for their pocket and not is what is good for the countey.

[Guest]

OK so March like they did in the 60'S.
But at a minimum find a leader who represents the women.

And that most certainly is not Hillary Clinton. She is in it for one woman......herself.

There are much, MUCH better choices than a self centered past her prime, past her time political business as usual .....did I mention self centered?

[Guest]

Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html)


It's no exaggeration to say Hillary crushes every possible GOP opponent in this latest CNN poll, and the poll was taken after the email 'scandal'.

[Guest]

Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html)


It's no exaggeration to say Hillary crushes every possible GOP opponent in this latest CNN poll, and the poll was taken after the email 'scandal'.

Ah yes the polls games.

Some of us remember when she was also crushing all the other candidates in 2007? And then dethroned by a virtual unknown on the national political stage?

She is the poster child for yesterday (damaged goods). And the gold standard for politics as usual.

There will eventually be enough skeleton rattling from the past to dethrone her again.

[Guest]

...and the Republican candidate of (insert any name) will be able to win the presidency over Sec. Clinton?

[Guest]

...and the Republican candidate of (insert any name) will be able to win the presidency over Sec. Clinton?

That's only a possibility if she actually wins the nomination. And if she wins the nomination, all I have to say is, seriously, that's all you got?? How many years has this been going on and that's all you got?? There's actually no one else in the whole Democratic party that isn't as qualified or more qualified than her? Oh, I guess not, considering a virtual unknown, totally unqualified candidate beat her out the last time!! Now, either something is really messed up in the Democratic Party, or someone else is pulling all the strings.......which is it?

[Guest]

I'm thinking that the perfect ticket for the dems, Clinton and Warren. That will set your pacemakers and tea party zealots a twitter!

[Guest]

I'm thinking that the perfect ticket for the dems, Clinton and Warren. That will set your pacemakers and tea party zealots a twitter!

Too bad you can't respond to real questions, and offer real solutions or better ideas that will address ALL of America instead of your insular little circle.

[Guest]

...and the Republican candidate of (insert any name) will be able to win the presidency over Sec. Clinton?

Changing subjects....again.
Reminder: the subject is Clinton crushing all other candidates.....NOT... about who could beat her.

All the current rhetoric from 2007 sounds like it is being replayed again now.
What I would like to hear from such a staunch, cock sure Clinton supporter is....how did she get bumped out of a similar shoe in candidate to losing the nomination in the 2008 election.

How and why did her loyal followers switch hats over night and choose a completely unqualified, unknown candidate and pass on all the hyped charisma, female, Clinton dynasty, Washington insider pre-ordained party choice????

[Guest]

She certainly has not added anything of consequence to her resume' since 2008.
Quite the contrary only more shady dealings than ever.

[Guest]

Changing subjects....again.
Reminder: the subject is Clinton crushing all other candidates.....NOT... about who could beat her.

All the current rhetoric from 2007 sounds like it is being replayed again now.
What I would like to hear from such a staunch, cock sure Clinton supporter is....how did she get bumped out of a similar shoe in candidate to losing the nomination in the 2008 election.

How and why did her loyal followers switch hats over night and choose a completely unqualified, unknown candidate and pass on all the hyped charisma, female, Clinton dynasty, Washington insider pre-ordained party choice????



The tightly contested democratic primary of 2007/2008 went on from Feb 2007, when Barack Obama announced his candidacy, until June 2008, when Hilary Clinton conceded defeat as the democratic nominee. That's hardly what you would call 'switching hats over night'.

As you might recall, Hilary won all the big states ie: California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc etc. It is still hard to figure out how Barack Obama beat her except he just kept plugging away, especially in the caucus states which she essentially ignored.

The 2016 contest will be about issues and not about personalities, and the winner will be the one who supports a woman's right to choose, the one who supports healthcare for all, the one who supports the voting rights act, the one who doesn't think that employers should decide what type of birth control a woman uses (or if she should even use birth control), if state mandated vaginal-probes are used, if the minimum wage is raised, if equal pay for equal work is the law, if violence against women is allowed, and many other equal rights issues.

Until the GOP wants to embrace these issues, they are looking at obscurity.

[Guest]

The tightly contested democratic primary of 2007/2008 went on from Feb 2007, when Barack Obama announced his candidacy, until June 2008, when Hilary Clinton conceded defeat as the democratic nominee. That's hardly what you would call 'switching hats over night'.

As you might recall, Hilary won all the big states ie: California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, etc etc. It is still hard to figure out how Barack Obama beat her except he just kept plugging away, especially in the caucus states which she essentially ignored.

The 2016 contest will be about issues and not about personalities, and the winner will be the one who supports a woman's right to choose, the one who supports healthcare for all, the one who supports the voting rights act, the one who doesn't think that employers should decide what type of birth control a woman uses (or if she should even use birth control), if state mandated vaginal-probes are used, if the minimum wage is raised, if equal pay for equal work is the law, if violence against women is allowed, and many other equal rights issues.

Until the GOP wants to embrace these issues, they are looking at obscurity.

The two things I take away from the above.
One. Hillary went from the presumed democratic nominee to getting beat by a near unknown, unqualified candidate that knew how to make speeches and promises.

Two. Only democrats have the issues identified and addressed.

[Guest]

Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html)


It's no exaggeration to say Hillary crushes every possible GOP opponent in this latest CNN poll, and the poll was taken after the email 'scandal'.

We will have to wait and see as 2016 approaches.

[Guest]

The 2016 contest will be about issues and not about personalities, and the winner will be the one who supports a woman's right to choose, the one who supports healthcare for all, the one who supports the voting rights act, the one who doesn't think that employers should decide what type of birth control a woman uses (or if she should even use birth control), if state mandated vaginal-probes are used, if the minimum wage is raised, if equal pay for equal work is the law, if violence against women is allowed, and many other equal rights issues.



Apparently this strange assemblage of concerns is important to you, but I hardly think most of your concerns are shared by more than a handful.

Healthcare is available to all. Simply sign up and pay the premium.

Voting - both sides agree

Birth Control - who knows what you're talking about? Hobby Lobby?

Vaginal-probes? Has to be a joke...???

Min wage raise - if $15/hr is good, why not really raise the poor out of poverty and raise it to $150/hr?

Equal pay for equal work - of course! Proven MYTH women earn less.

Violence against women? - LOL... um who's for beating women? Really?

Abortion - that's about the ONLY valid policy disagreement between parties. Think we're up to about 22 MILLION abortions since Roe v. Wade - CONGRATS!

[Guest]

...and the Republican candidate of (insert any name) will be able to win the presidency over Sec. Clinton?
These two GOP candidates appear to be doomed.

https://youtu.be/fKJ1LNwtAcI

[Guest]

That's only a possibility if she actually wins the nomination. And if she wins the nomination, all I have to say is, seriously, that's all you got?? How many years has this been going on and that's all you got?? There's actually no one else in the whole Democratic party that isn't as qualified or more qualified than her? Oh, I guess not, considering a virtual unknown, totally unqualified candidate beat her out the last time!! Now, either something is really messed up in the Democratic Party, or someone else is pulling all the strings.......which is it?

Well you're correct about the "totally unqualified candidate" who beat out Mrs Clinton ... and he has since indeed proven to be totally unqualified in myriad of ways

[Guest]

Well you're correct about the "totally unqualified candidate" who beat out Mrs Clinton ... and he has since indeed proven to be totally unqualified in myriad of ways


:BigApplause:

[Guest]

That's only a possibility if she actually wins the nomination. And if she wins the nomination, all I have to say is, seriously, that's all you got?? How many years has this been going on and that's all you got?? There's actually no one else in the whole Democratic party that isn't as qualified or more qualified than her? Oh, I guess not, considering a virtual unknown, totally unqualified candidate beat her out the last time!! Now, either something is really messed up in the Democratic Party, or someone else is pulling all the strings.......which is it?


Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html)


This is so amusing. Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate ever, and yet she trounces every possible GOP contender by at least 10% points. What does that say about the GOP candidates?

I know, I know the polls are skewed just like they were on election night 2012 when Mitt Romney believed he would win right up until the polls closed, based on his internal polling. Even then, Karl Rove was running around Fox News yelling "no, no this can't be happening". Who will ever forget that night?

[Guest]

Poll: Hillary Clinton still tops in 2016 - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html)


This is so amusing. Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate ever, and yet she trounces every possible GOP contender by at least 10% points. What does that say about the GOP candidates?

I know, I know the polls are skewed just like they were on election night 2012 when Mitt Romney believed he would win right up until the polls closed, based on his internal polling. Even then, Karl Rove was running around Fox News yelling "no, no this can't be happening". Who will ever forget that night?

How can we forget THAT night when we are reminded evry day since what a horrible :swear: outcome. The nobody pied piper sucked in millions not once but twice. How can there be so many :censored::censored: gullible people?

[Guest]

How can we forget THAT night when we are reminded evry day since what a horrible :swear: outcome. The nobody pied piper sucked in millions not once but twice. How can there be so many :censored::censored: gullible people?

That's easy ... continued illegal immigration, continued race baiting and making blacks perpetually dependent upon the democrat party and periodic hysteria that single women often buy into

[Guest]

How can we forget THAT night when we are reminded evry day since what a horrible :swear: outcome. The nobody pied piper sucked in millions not once but twice. How can there be so many :censored::censored: gullible people?


And this is from the party that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney and 9/11, the Iraq war, 10% unemployment, total collapse of the financial markets, and the party that thinks Sarah Palin could be president. You betcha.

The good news for you folks is that Donald Trump announced today that he is forming an exploratory committee to gear up for a run for president in 2016.

[Guest]

And this is from the party that gave us George Bush and Dick Cheney and 9/11, the Iraq war, 10% unemployment, total collapse of the financial markets, and the party that thinks Sarah Palin could be president. You betcha.

The good news for you folks is that Donald Trump announced today that he is forming an exploratory committee to gear up for a run for president in 2016.


I agree. Some people can't seem to stand peace and prosperity.

[Guest]

That's easy ... continued illegal immigration, continued race baiting and making blacks perpetually dependent upon the democrat party and periodic hysteria that single women often buy into

Republicans just alienated Hispanics, African Americans, and women in one single post!

[Guest]

WOW!!!!

A single post qualifies to tar the entire group....convenient vrbiage to promote one's case no matter if it is accurate or not in this case.

And the crumbling of the "crush" continues:

Democratic support for Hillary Clinton softens: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-poll-idUSKBN0MF0DV20150319)

I can't wait to see how the response to this is re-stated.

[Guest]

Obama's rein over the kingdom show be cuff iciest reminder of what destruction to America can happen when an unqualified person trained in the letter of the law is elected.
The free lunch is not worth losing our freedoms and all that IS AMERICAN!

[Guest]

Obama's rein over the kingdom show be cuff iciest reminder of what destruction to America can happen when an unqualified person trained in the letter of the law is elected.
The free lunch is not worth losing our freedoms and all that IS AMERICAN!

I need the ability to edit.......the underlined should read:

"...Obama's reign over the kingdom should be sufficient..."

[Guest]

The corruption of the Clintons continues … basically raking in millions of solicited “donations” (i.e. purchase of future access) … what could be wrong with that??

WSJ: “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities… All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show…After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, the foundation resumed accepting donations from foreign governments. Just after she stepped down as secretary of state, it received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress. In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies.”

[Guest]

The corruption of the Clintons continues … basically raking in millions of solicited “donations” (i.e. purchase of future access) … what could be wrong with that??

WSJ: “Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities… All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show…After Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, the foundation resumed accepting donations from foreign governments. Just after she stepped down as secretary of state, it received a large donation from a conglomerate run by a member of China’s National People’s Congress. In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies.”


The Wall Street Journal...blah, blah, blah. Is that the best they got? The Clinton Foundation's books are open for anyone to see, as are the Gates Foundation, etc etc. How else would the WSJ get access to all these facts?

Does anyone think that the average working woman voter gives a rat's patootie about how much the CGI took in or where it went? Most voters are just trying to balance their own books.

[Guest]

The Wall Street Journal...blah, blah, blah. Is that the best they got? The Clinton Foundation's books are open for anyone to see, as are the Gates Foundation, etc etc. How else would the WSJ get access to all these facts?

Does anyone think that the average working woman voter gives a rat's patootie about how much the CGI took in or where it went? Most voters are just trying to balance their own books.

If they lived and worked in Washington using other people's money they wouldn't have that burden!!

[Guest]

The Wall Street Journal...blah, blah, blah. Is that the best they got? The Clinton Foundation's books are open for anyone to see, as are the Gates Foundation, etc etc. How else would the WSJ get access to all these facts?

Does anyone think that the average working woman voter gives a rat's patootie about how much the CGI took in or where it went? Most voters are just trying to balance their own books.

Let me translate what you're really saying if I could ...

" I'm a Liberal Democrat through and through, and I don't care how dishonest or corrupt Mrs Clinton is ... I'm voting for her anyway. Plus the alleged corruption is just part of the vast right wing conspiracy ... just like when all those foxxy conservative women jumped in bed with Bill"

[Guest]

Let me translate what you're really saying if I could ...

" I'm a Liberal Democrat through and through, and I don't care how dishonest or corrupt Mrs Clinton is ... I'm voting for her anyway. Plus the alleged corruption is just part of the vast right wing conspiracy ... just like when all those foxxy conservative women jumped in bed with Bill"

The Clinton Global Initiative is a CHARITY. The books are open for inspection, just like the Gates Foundation books. And just to be clear; Bill Clinton is not running for president. If he were, he would probably win in a landslide.

[Guest]

The Clinton Global Initiative is a CHARITY. The books are open for inspection, just like the Gates Foundation books. And just to be clear; Bill Clinton is not running for president. If he were, he would probably win in a landslide.

I see the party kool aide strength has gone up to triple strength!

[Guest]

The Clinton Global Initiative is a CHARITY. The books are open for inspection, just like the Gates Foundation books. And just to be clear; Bill Clinton is not running for president. If he were, he would probably win in a landslide.

WOW....what tripe

Do you read ANYTHING..ANYTHING AT ALL, except what feeds your party line ?

You would be amazed what information is out there that is UN biases, and neither left nor right.

This blind defense of ANYONE, not just her, is unhealthy and speaks to a very closed mind.

[Guest]

What were all you women voters who think they are going to slam dunk Clinton to office in 2016 doing in 2008?

Sma e person. Nothing changes except more controvery to her already questionable past.

Her numbers back in 2007 campaign mode showed her to be the heir apparent...just like now.

Same question I asked in another thread....how did all you so certain in 2016 ladies allow an unknown, unqualified dark horse (no pun intended) to knock her off her perch?

I also suppose if there was a better female candidate running as a republican you all would most certainly vote for the better woman.....right?

[Guest]

I guess what I find, with the thread, as well as almost all other threads on the political forum is there is a group for posters that know everything.

If someone even hints at an opposing or liberal view, they are catagorized as unknowing or as a low information voter. Even when there are links to information, that info is dismissed as biased.

It would seem that the right wing posters are angry and opposed to just about anything that would be accomplished by this President. Somehow, it must be just what it's like in DC with that party....no to everything.

It seems the country is in unbelievable bad shape and we will not recover. Most rational persons will not buy such theories. Certainly, the economic data does not suggest that to be the case.

In general, this entire political forum is for those that want to preach to the choir (themselves and like minded) and not really debate anything.

Before you say it: I'm a low information, stupid, know nothing voter.

[Guest]

I guess what I find, with the thread, as well as almost all other threads on the political forum is there is a group for posters that know everything.

If someone even hints at an opposing or liberal view, they are catagorized as unknowing or as a low information voter. Even when there are links to information, that info is dismissed as biased.

It would seem that the right wing posters are angry and opposed to just about anything that would be accomplished by this President. Somehow, it must be just what it's like in DC with that party....no to everything.

It seems the country is in unbelievable bad shape and we will not recover. Most rational persons will not buy such theories. Certainly, the economic data does not suggest that to be the case.

In general, this entire political forum is for those that want to preach to the choir (themselves and like minded) and not really debate anything.

Before you say it: I'm a low information, stupid, know nothing voter.

With a few word/party inference changes the message fits either the right or the left shoe.

Such a sad assessment of one's self. Here is another (left or right) statement....things will start to improve after the 2016 election:D

[Guest]

What were all you women voters who think they are going to slam dunk Clinton to office in 2016 doing in 2008?

Sma e person. Nothing changes except more controvery to her already questionable past.

Her numbers back in 2007 campaign mode showed her to be the heir apparent...just like now.

Same question I asked in another thread....how did all you so certain in 2016 ladies allow an unknown, unqualified dark horse (no pun intended) to knock her off her perch?

I also suppose if there was a better female candidate running as a republican you all would most certainly vote for the better woman.....right?


In 2007/2008 there was what is called a democratic primary, where mostly two candidates campaigned and duked it out, and the one with the most votes won.

Hilary Clinton fought a long hard battle and won in big states like California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but in the end Barack Obama had the most delegates and he won. It was in all the papers. There were televised debates.

The next election cycle in 2016 will be like the 2012 cycle when Barack Obama ran unopposed, no contests, no primary debates. By the way, are republicans going to have a candidate in this race?

[Guest]

I think what you said was you ladies who have been waiting all these years couldn't make it happen.
She lost to an unknown to a better debater?
Wait one while I recover from laughter.
So you think she will be unopposed? Where did that revelation come from?
The rest of the snide commentary is not worth the keystrokes to answer.

[Guest]

The Clinton Global Initiative is a CHARITY. The books are open for inspection, just like the Gates Foundation books. And just to be clear; Bill Clinton is not running for president. If he were, he would probably win in a landslide.

I'm going to ask you a simple question. I'm hopeful you will provide a simple and HONEST answer ...

Do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to solicit donations from foreign leaders to her personal Foundation??

[Guest]

In 2007/2008 there was what is called a democratic primary, where mostly two candidates campaigned and duked it out, and theM one with the most votes won.

Hilary Clinton fought a long hard battle and won in big states like California, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, but in the end Barack Obama had the most delegates and he won. It was in all the papers. There were televised debates.

The next election cycle in 2016 will be like the 2012 cycle when Barack Obama ran unopposed, no contests, no primary debates. By the way, are republicans going to have a candidate in this race?

So the thinking is she will run un-opposed?
Really?
Thank you for the dissertation on how she LOST!

[Guest]

I think what you said was you ladies who have been waiting all these years couldn't make it happen.
She lost to an unknown to a better debater?
Wait one while I recover from laughter.
So you think she will be unopposed? Where did that revelation come from?
The rest of the snide commentary is not worth the keystrokes to answer.

IMO Barack Obama had one item in his winning playbook that no other candidate had then or has had since, and that is a winning ground game based on using the internet. The organization that went into his effort for getting out the vote was phenomenal.

Women across the country were devastated when Hilary lost, but they did not sit around and mope. They jumped on the Obama bandwagon to make sure there was a democratic president. Hopefully, the president is going to give Hilary full access to his data bases and strategies.

Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said today that even though the president usually stays out of primary politics, he thinks he will be endorsing a candidate.

Your angst is understandable, considering the GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and 2016 will make it six of seven.

BTW: Hilary gave her last paid speech yesterday. The campaign begins. Game on.

[Guest]

I'm going to ask you a simple question. I'm hopeful you will provide a simple and HONEST answer ...

Do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to solicit donations from foreign leaders to her personal Foundation??

There is no simple and honest answer, because we lay people have no idea how this works. Aren't donations pledged when the foundation meets in NYC the same time as the UN General Assembly meeting?

As far as these foreign countries getting any special favors from the secretary of state, this would be highly improbable. Under the US constitution, only the president sets foreign policy and the secretary of state is his emissary, traveling around the world to see that his policies are implemented.

The Clinton Foundation books are open for all to inspect.

[Guest]

IMO Barack Obama had one item in his winning playbook that no other candidate had then or has had since, and that is a winning ground game based on using the internet. The organization that went into his effort for getting out the vote was phenomenal.

Women across the country were devastated when Hilary lost, but they did not sit around and mope. They jumped on the Obama bandwagon to make sure there was a democratic president. Hopefully, the president is going to give Hilary full access to his data bases and strategies.

Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said today that even though the president usually stays out of primary politics, he thinks he will be endorsing a candidate.

Your angst is understandable, considering the GOP has lost the popular vote in five of the last six elections, and 2016 will make it six of seven.

BTW: Hilary gave her last paid speech yesterday. The campaign begins. Game on.

Gotta give you credit....you nailed it in what you said. Said like the typical "game player" but admitetly, pretty accurate.

Candidates sucked, except for Romney, on the GOP side as well.

What you DID NOT SAY, was that now we have a record to look at. Turning our back on long time allies, welcoming and warming to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (HAMAS and IRAN for two, but there are more) Lack of any leadership at all, as I do not include a President who feels HIS agenda is the only agenda in town.....and on and on.

But what you said is correct and said by someone who obviously has the party interest before the country !

[Guest]

There is no simple and honest answer, because we lay people have no idea how this works. Aren't donations pledged when the foundation meets in NYC the same time as the UN General Assembly meeting?

As far as these foreign countries getting any special favors from the secretary of state, this would be highly improbable. Under the US constitution, only the president sets foreign policy and the secretary of state is his emissary, traveling around the world to see that his policies are implemented.

The Clinton Foundation books are open for all to inspect.

Your inability to make a simple distinction between appropriate and inappropriate behavior for a senior Government officer is open for all to see ... thanks for in effect answering the question in spite of your attempt to dodge it

[Guest]

I'm going to ask you a simple question. I'm hopeful you will provide a simple and HONEST answer ...

Do you think it's appropriate for a Secretary of State to solicit donations from foreign leaders to her personal Foundation??


That would be absolutely inappropriate.

[Guest]

That would be absolutely inappropriate.

I totally agree that asking for donations from foreign leaders while you are secretary of state would be absolutely inappropriate, and this is something that was never done by Hilary Clinton.

[Guest]

I totally agree that asking for donations from foreign leaders while you are secretary of state would be absolutely inappropriate, and this is something that was never done by Hilary Clinton.

If Hillary Clinton had even thought of doing such a thing as secretary of state, there would be all kinds of congressional investigations. Even the GOP wouldn't make up something this bizarre.

[Guest]

I totally agree that asking for donations from foreign leaders while you are secretary of state would be absolutely inappropriate, and this is something that was never done by Hilary Clinton.

I hate to have to break the news to you ... but that is what she apparently did and the primary reason why she set up her own mail server. The objective was to make sure any incriminating emails never got into the hands of a congressional committee.

[Guest]

I hate to have to break the news to you ... but that is what she apparently did and the primary reason why she set up her own mail server. The objective was to make sure any incriminating emails never got into the hands of a congressional committee.

And you know this because???????????????????

[Guest]

OK for the die hard Clinton/no matter what supporters (not derogatory but factual) why was/is it OK that she not only did not follow the guidelines of communications for the secretary of state......she knowingly violated the law and the protocols set up to keep the information honest, transparent where security allows and available.

Why does the government now have to go through jumping through hoops to get what the would and should have by the protocols of her then office.

Now why is it OK that she allowed/directed that to happen?

My opinion? As a lawyer she wanted to insure she had control of anything that would incriminate or affect her ability to deny. She has the background and the training to use, abuse and or hide behind the letter of the law. She with the help of her counsel know exactly how far out to go on the thin ice of truth. Lawyers don't lie....they just do not tell the truth!

Instead of attacking my opinion first. Please answer the question asked. Then have your say about my opinion.

[Guest]

And you know this because???????????????????

When I see a charmingly naive question such as yours, I'm reminded of the young boy in La Grange TX who, when first learning about the Chicken Ranch, asked "what goes on inside a whorehouse anyway?"

[Guest]

April 9, 2015 - Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts In Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds
PDF format

---

COLORADO: Paul 44 - Clinton 41
IOWA: Paul 43 - Clinton 42
VIRGINIA: Clinton 47 - Paul 43

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa.

2016 Presidential Swing State Polls Poll - April 9, 2015 - Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts I | Quinnipiac University Connecticut (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184)

[Guest]

Just wait until if and when she comes forward and declares she is running.
Then the gloves will come off and the wilt will turn into an unrecoverable slide.
Just like 2008.

[Guest]

Some more good news for Hillary as she rolls towards the nomination.

The prostitutes of Nevada are now endorsing her and, much to my relief, Bill announced that he too is solidly behind these women.

The hookers are especially impressed with Hillary's foriegn policy record as we all are ... the rise of ISIS, Iran about to go nuclear and Russia on the warpath. Heckuva job indeed.

Anyway, good to know the "ho's" are supporting her.

‘Hookers for Hillary’ initiative kicks off at Bunny Ranch; something Bill can get behind! - BizPac Review (http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/04/18/hookers-for-hillary-initiative-kicks-off-at-bunny-ranch-something-bill-can-get-behind-196293)

[Guest]

I hate to have to break the news to you ... but that is what she apparently did and the primary reason why she set up her own mail server. The objective was to make sure any incriminating emails never got into the hands of a congressional committee.

Nixon was booted because of watergate and now we are talking about someone the democrats are saying "she is the most experience to run for president" does hooking herself up privately for e-mail sound like experienced or corrupt?

[Guest]

Nixon was booted because of watergate and now we are talking about someone the democrats are saying "she is the most experience to run for president" does hooking herself up privately for e-mail sound like experienced or corrupt?

Yes. Very experienced at corruption, deception, lying and faking caring. Look how well she plays the loving wife....ON CAMERA (good politics she thinks.....phony some of us think).

The democrats know they can do better. Just waiting for the right moment where and when it won't look like they wanted to do it....you know like 2008.

[Guest]

Nixon was booted because of watergate and now we are talking about someone the democrats are saying "she is the most experience to run for president" does hooking herself up privately for e-mail sound like experienced or corrupt?

Watergate was tame compared to many of Hillary's scandals and for that many of the scandals past and present by the Washington set.

Nixon was a gifted statesman compared to many in Washington. but there was one critical difference. The liberal media took delight in destroying conservatives and nothing has changed to this day

[Guest]

Agree they are personality traits. Still waiting to hear One thing this woman accomplished as secretary of state? Answer is nothing but to the clueless they will say "what difference does it make"?

[Guest]

Yes. Very experienced at corruption, deception, lying and faking caring. Look how well she plays the loving wife....ON CAMERA (good politics she thinks.....phony some of us think).

The democrats know they can do better. Just waiting for the right moment where and when it won't look like they wanted to do it....you know like 2008.

Hillary is a wonderful wife.

Just because she screams and screeches at Bill, while throwing plates and dishes at him (ie actually drawing blood at one point according to Secret Service sources) is no reason for any of us to be "judgmental" :)

[Guest]

Hillary is a wonderful wife.

Just because she screams and screeches at Bill, while throwing plates and dishes at him (ie actually drawing blood at one point according to Secret Service sources) is no reason for any of us to be "judgmental" :)


If this is the best you got against Hillary, we might as well declare 'game over' and don't even bother selecting a sacrificial lamb to run against her from the ever growing list.

How about we meet at your campaign headquarters on election night and pop the champagne like we did in 2008 and 2012, when the Daily Sun reported that residents at Lake Sumter Landing were euphoric (their words, not mine). There must have been a lot of Obama supporters out that night.

[Guest]

78% of 18-29 year olds favor marriage equality.

But yeah, let's run a bunch of old right wing wackos who think they have a right to tell people who they can marry.

Hilary in a landslide.

[Guest]

I was just listening to Fox News and they had yet another anti-Hillary Clinton story on.

I got to thinking (since I do not watch Fox News on a regular basis, I am still able to think for myself), that instead of all the anti-Hillary stories, WHY are they not doing POSITIVE stories about all the accomplishments of the Republivan candidates and prospective Republican candidates?

They could incorporate these personal positive positions with the positive positions of the Republican party instead of just focusing on trying to tear down Mrs. Clinton or President Obama.

[Guest]

78% of 18-29 year olds favor marriage equality.

But yeah, let's run a bunch of old right wing wackos who think they have a right to tell people who they can marry.

Hilary in a landslide.

I think it is so sad that we have reduced the office of the President of the United States to issues such as gay rights, women's rights, who can give the most freebies out while in office, etc. Not to say that these are not important issues to discuss, but shouldn't the President have more pressing issues to deal with - like the safety of our country for one thing? Aren't leadership qualities and experience more important than ideology for a President? If the majority really does think as you do, I'm afraid we are in real trouble as a country.

Give me a real leader who has integrity, experience, and a willingness and ability to bring people together, and I will vote for him or her no matter what party!

[Guest]

I think it is so sad that we have reduced the office of the President of the United States to issues such as gay rights, women's rights, who can give the most freebies out while in office, etc. Not to say that these are not important issues to discuss, but shouldn't the President have more pressing issues to deal with - like the safety of our country for one thing? Aren't leadership qualities and experience more important than ideology for a President? If the majority really does think as you do, I'm afraid we are in real trouble as a country.

Give me a real leader who has integrity, experience, and a willingness and ability to bring people together, and I will vote for him or her no matter what party!

Totally agree ... reducing the key qualifier for a Presidential candidate to their position on homosexual marriage is MORONIC. This is especially the case in a dangerous world that is the result of botched foreign policy for the last 15 years or so

[Guest]

If this is the best you got against Hillary, we might as well declare 'game over' and don't even bother selecting a sacrificial lamb to run against her from the ever growing list.

How about we meet at your campaign headquarters on election night and pop the champagne like we did in 2008 and 2012, when the Daily Sun reported that residents at Lake Sumter Landing were euphoric (their words, not mine). There must have been a lot of Obama supporters out that night.

I need to correct you in a few areas.

1. I have no doubt that Hillary is capable of winning. Have never said she couldn't

2. She can win because there are growing numbers of ignorant people, often illegally here, who will readily vote for whatever Santa Claus candidate the Dems put on their ticket.

3 if Hillary does win in 2016 I too will be at the Square but with a large bottle of booze to drown my sorrows

4. However, my key assertions remain intact and impregnable to any factual refutation. To wit, Hillary is a mean spirited shrew who loathes the common people... she is a totally transparent phony and a money grubbing liar. Her email incident is a case study in a level of premeditated prevarication that would make Nixon proud. Her fabulous wealth stems from her trading on her name and selling access to foreign powers.

Now come on ... you are a very smart woman, and I'm confident that while you may support her policies, you don't condone her behavior or lack of character

[Guest]

Everyday more insight into Clinton and her notion of why she thinks she is entitled to be POTUS:

Articles: Why Hillary Can't Be in the Moment (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/why_hillary_cant_be_in_the_moment.html)

Something everyday....it can't all be made up.

[Guest]

Give me a real leader who has integrity, experience, and a willingness and ability to bring people together, and I will vote for him or her no matter what party!

I - and probably others here - would like to know who you believe has the traits you listed.

Experience in what? Being an elected leader, being experienced in making foreign policy, experience in bringing political factions together?

[Guest]

Integrity, character, and leadership experience all matter - a lot. This country had the rare chance to elect somebody with outstanding character, credentials, and business experience but went for the left wing rhetoric and the ideology of envy and class hatred instead. Mitt Romney would have been an outstanding President. You blew it America and we are now a lesser country than we could have been because of it. Clinton is as transparent as Obama if people would just open their eyes. This is not a left or right issue - she lacks character as demonstrated by numerous lies and deceptions.

I - and probably others here - would like to know who you believe has the traits you listed.

Experience in what? Being an elected leader, being experienced in making foreign policy, experience in bringing political factions together?

[Guest]

I - and probably others here - would like to know who you believe has the traits you listed.

Experience in what? Being an elected leader, being experienced in making foreign policy, experience in bringing political factions together?

I agree with the previous poster - Mitt Romney would have been a great choice regarding leadership qualities, experience, and integrity; and we all now know for a fact his foreign policy knowledge was far superior to the current President. Now here's where it gets tricky - does he espouse my political views? I would have to say no to that in some areas, but you see, I can rise above some aspects of my ideology if I think a candidate clearly has what it takes to lead a country.

[Guest]

I agree with the previous poster - Mitt Romney would have been a great choice regarding leadership qualities, experience, and integrity; and we all now know for a fact his foreign policy knowledge was far superior to the current President. Now here's where it gets tricky - does he espouse my political views? I would have to say no to that in some areas, but you see, I can rise above some aspects of my ideology if I think a candidate clearly has what it takes to lead a country.

Mitt was not perfect but he is very very SMART !! Unlike Obama, Mitt actually professes an intellectually coherent foreign policy world view

By the way, not that it's related, Mitts ncaa brackets score was something like 99.9% percentile. Does anyone know what Obamas score was??

[Guest]

I agree with the previous poster - Mitt Romney would have been a great choice regarding leadership qualities, experience, and integrity; and we all now know for a fact his foreign policy knowledge was far superior to the current President. Now here's where it gets tricky - does he espouse my political views? I would have to say no to that in some areas, but you see, I can rise above some aspects of my ideology if I think a candidate clearly has what it takes to lead a country.


So why isn't there a big 'draft Mitt Romney' movement at the grass roots level today? As far as we know, he is still available and would stand head and shoulders above the current crop of GOP candidates that showed up in NH this past week-end.

[Guest]

So why isn't there a big 'draft Mitt Romney' movement at the grass roots level today? As far as we know, he is still available and would stand head and shoulders above the current crop of GOP candidates that showed up in NH this past week-end.

Just waiting. Let us hope the same is true of better democratic candidates.

[Guest]

Just waiting. Let us hope the same is true of better democratic candidates.

As campaigns launch, poll finds GOP field stays tight - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html)


The difference is that Hillary Clinton beats all her GOP rivals by a minimum of 14 points, and the leading GOP candidate, Jeb Bush is only garnering 17% of the GOP vote. This new CNN has some very interesting numbers to chew on.

[Guest]

As campaigns launch, poll finds GOP field stays tight - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html)


The difference is that Hillary Clinton beats all her GOP rivals by a minimum of 14 points, and the leading GOP candidate, Jeb Bush is only garnering 17% of the GOP vote. This new CNN has some very interesting numbers to chew on.

Same way she poled in 2008 before being bumped off by a virtual unknown, untested, unqualified, dark horse candidate.

[Guest]

Just waiting. Let us hope the same is true of better democratic candidates.

Do have a couple more options for our dems. What about Joe Biden or especially loved Elizabeth Warren? Any of the three could easily beat all the GOP candidates including Romney. Y'all need to start looking for moderation and middle of the road candidates. Someone capable of negotiation and compromise!

[Guest]

Polls are essentially useless this far out. Their sole purpose is to give talking heads something to blather about.

As campaigns launch, poll finds GOP field stays tight - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/politics/2016-elections-republican-field-poll/index.html)


The difference is that Hillary Clinton beats all her GOP rivals by a minimum of 14 points, and the leading GOP candidate, Jeb Bush is only garnering 17% of the GOP vote. This new CNN has some very interesting numbers to chew on.

[Guest]

I think it is so sad that we have reduced the office of the President of the United States to issues such as gay rights, women's rights, who can give the most freebies out while in office, etc. Not to say that these are not important issues to discuss, but shouldn't the President have more pressing issues to deal with - like the safety of our country for one thing? Aren't leadership qualities and experience more important than ideology for a President? If the majority really does think as you do, I'm afraid we are in real trouble as a country.

Give me a real leader who has integrity, experience, and a willingness and ability to bring people together, and I will vote for him or her no matter what party!



This is too hysterical. All the GOP has done is focus on taking away a woman's right to choose, birth control choices, introduce vaginal probes, personhood amendments, religious freedom laws, and now that they are on the wrong side of all these issues, they are like boohoo, boohoo, talk about something else, anything else.

Republicans can't win a presidential election any more and can't repeal these court decisions, so they will just chip away at every law they don't agree with.

The safety of the country is probably not a winning issue for the
GOP either since 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened on their watch.

They can't criticize the economy too much either, since the largest recession since the great depression happened on their watch.

How about repealing the ACA? Always a biggie for republicans? Nineteen million residents who now have health care, many for the first time, might disagree with you.

[Guest]

Dying wish: Don't vote for Hillary Clinton - Katherine Borgerding - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obit-dont-vote-for-hillary-117122.html?hp=l3_4)


Another old white man can't stand the thought of a woman president, even from the grave.

[Guest]

Do have a couple more options for our dems. What about Joe Biden or especially loved Elizabeth Warren? Any of the three could easily beat all the GOP candidates including Romney. Y'all need to start looking for moderation and middle of the road candidates. Someone capable of negotiation and compromise!

Just out of curiosity, in your fever swamp world, do you define Elizabeth Warren as a "moderate?"

[Guest]

Dying wish: Don't vote for Hillary Clinton - Katherine Borgerding - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obit-dont-vote-for-hillary-117122.html?hp=l3_4)


Another old white man can't stand the thought of a woman president, even from the grave.

More predictable anti-white male racism and bigotry from the very font of tolerance from the soul of the leftist world view ... in other words, a sick puppy who needs help.

[Guest]

Dying wish: Don't vote for Hillary Clinton - Katherine Borgerding - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obit-dont-vote-for-hillary-117122.html?hp=l3_4)


Another old white man can't stand the thought of a woman president, even from the grave.

A true activist...predictable.....always slashing out.....very narrow world

[Guest]

Dying wish: Don't vote for Hillary Clinton - Katherine Borgerding - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obit-dont-vote-for-hillary-117122.html?hp=l3_4)


Another old white man can't stand the thought of a woman president, even from the grave.

Has it ever occurred to you, within your anti white male racist worldview, that perhaps this guy would love to see someone like Carly Fiorina elected, instead of the dishonest shrew Hillary Clinton?

[Guest]

The New York Times and Fox News have each made arrangements for additional in depth reporting on new book which details the Clintons' apparently unquenchable thirst for gaining wealth and cash, even if it means perverting the honesty and integrity of the Office of Secretary of State to do it.

The book purports to show how donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton may have influenced Hillary Clinton's decisions at the State Department.

This should be interesting. The detestable, evil and (fill in your favorite hate word) "Faux News" is one thing for liberal wackos to rail at. However, when the respectable, honest, totally unbiased and often morally superior New York Times gets in bed with the same source being used by Fox ...well that could cause liberals' heads to literally explode.

Thus, I request that all liberal TOTV members please use caution when reading the link from Politico.

New York Times, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/new-york-times-fox-news-strike-deals-for-conservative-205791.html?hp=l2_4)

[Guest]

This is too hysterical. All the GOP has done is focus on taking away a woman's right to choose, birth control choices, introduce vaginal probes, personhood amendments, religious freedom laws, and now that they are on the wrong side of all these issues, they are like boohoo, boohoo, talk about something else, anything else.

Republicans can't win a presidential election any more and can't repeal these court decisions, so they will just chip away at every law they don't agree with.

The safety of the country is probably not a winning issue for the
GOP either since 9/11 and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened on their watch.

They can't criticize the economy too much either, since the largest recession since the great depression happened on their watch.

How about repealing the ACA? Always a biggie for republicans? Nineteen million residents who now have health care, many for the first time, might disagree with you.

I'm glad you found the post hysterical. What I find amusing is that in all of your ranting above, you missed the entire point of the post that you chose to criticize.

[Guest]

Has it ever occurred to you, within your anti white male racist worldview, that perhaps this guy would love to see someone like Carly Fiorina elected, instead of the dishonest shrew Hillary Clinton?

Ah now doesn't that take the wind out out the arm waving mill of feminism?
I can't wait to see how it gets spun to suit the coming rant we all know will come.

[Guest]

The New York Times and Fox News have each made arrangements for additional in depth reporting on new book which details the Clintons' apparently unquenchable thirst for gaining wealth and cash, even if it means perverting the honesty and integrity of the Office of Secretary of State to do it.

The book purports to show how donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees paid to former president Bill Clinton may have influenced Hillary Clinton's decisions at the State Department.

This should be interesting. The detestable, evil and (fill in your favorite hate word) "Faux News" is one thing for liberal wackos to rail at. However, when the respectable, honest, totally unbiased and often morally superior New York Times gets in bed with the same source being used by Fox ...well that could cause liberals' heads to literally explode.

Thus, I request that all liberal TOTV members please use caution when reading the link from Politico.

New York Times, Fox News strike deals for anti-Clinton research - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/04/new-york-times-fox-news-strike-deals-for-conservative-205791.html?hp=l2_4)

Murdoch Empire Colludes With 'Liberal Media' To Promote 'Clinton Cash' - The National Memo (http://www.nationalmemo.com/murdoch-empire-colludes-with-liberal-media-to-promote-clinton-cash/)


Women of America Unite...We are not going back.

[Guest]

Murdoch Empire Colludes With 'Liberal Media' To Promote 'Clinton Cash' - The National Memo (http://www.nationalmemo.com/murdoch-empire-colludes-with-liberal-media-to-promote-clinton-cash/)


Women of America Unite...We are not going back.

You know for someone who discounts biased sources such as "faux News" etc, why would you even bother to cite the left wing partisan rag you did in your post?

In any event, it's amusing to to hear an updated IWW ( ie Wobblies) slogan and let us know women "are not going back" My guess is any woman dumb enough to buy that line are in no imminent danger of that ever happening anyway ... no sane man would want them

[Guest]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-questions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0&referrer=

This story from the New York Times is depressing tale of greed and corruption .... I wonder how the smartest woman in the world could be dumb enough to do this ?

[Guest]

This thread continues on ad nauseam

[Guest]

Hillary Clinton Just Took A Shot At GOP Plans To Cut Social Security (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-privatize-social-security-just-wrong?utm_content=buffer45c18&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)


Hillary Clinton spoke out on her plan to save social security today, while campaigning in NH. This woman is amazing.

[Guest]

Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie all are in favor of cutting Social Security benefits to seniors.

Hillary Clinton is not in favor of reducing Social Security benefits to seniors.

Which one will be most popular in The Villages? Hmmmm?

[Guest]

Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie all are in favor of cutting Social Security benefits to seniors.

Hillary Clinton is not in favor of reducing Social Security benefits to seniors.

Which one will be most popular in The Villages? Hmmmm?


And she'll do it while balancing the budget and leaving a huge surplus, just like her husband did.

[Guest]

And she'll do it while balancing the budget and leaving a huge surplus, just like her husband did.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Guest]

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Another intelligent, well thought out response from the side that can't even find a candidate and who predicted Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.

[Guest]

And she'll do it while balancing the budget and leaving a huge surplus, just like her husband did.

Wow, talk about revisionist history and drinking the cool aid!! :)

Bill had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by Newt and the boys who forced a balanced budget upon him. He also inherited the momentum of what Reagan had done in the 80s ...

[Guest]

Wow, talk about revisionist history and drinking the cool aid!! :)

Bill had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, by Newt and the boys who forced a balanced budget upon him. He also inherited the momentum of what Reagan had done in the 80s ...

Let's see, Reagan left office in 1988, and Bill Clinton left office in 2000, but all of Clinton's surplus was the result of Reagan's policies? Maybe in your alternate universe.

And what happened to those surpluses when George W Bush was president?

[Guest]

Let's see, Reagan left office in 1988, and Bill Clinton left office in 2000, but all of Clinton's surplus was the result of Reagan's policies? Maybe in your alternate universe.

And what happened to those surpluses when George W Bush was president?

What about Obama? Selective memory, huh?

[Guest]

What about Obama? Selective memory, huh?

Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/)

President Obama claims the deficit has decreased by two thirds since 2009. He made this claim in his state of the union speech on Jan 20, 2015. Politifact rates this claim as mostly true.

Look at the charts contained in the article.

[Guest]

Hillary Clinton crushes Republican rivals in new poll - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-crushes-republican-rivals-in-new-poll-2015-04-20?siteid=yhoof2)

[Guest]

Clinton was interviewed onthe trail today and when asked about the emails and donations issues. She stated this was political jousting and these are nothing but distractions.

OF COURSE THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jan/20/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-deficit-has-decreased-two-thir/)

President Obama claims the deficit has decreased by two thirds since 2009. He made this claim in his state of the union speech on Jan 20, 2015. Politifact rates this claim as mostly true.

Look at the charts contained in the article.

He has ONLY reduced the rate at which the deficit CONTINUES to grow and nothing more, He has added over 8 trillion to the national debt since he has been in office -- TWICE the amount of G. W. Bush.

[Guest]

She has no plan. There are only two "knobs" to turn: you can either reduce benefits, including phasing in another retirement date as was done previously, and/or increase social security taxes. You can try to con the masses with rhetoric but it is a numbers games and to try to convince people otherwise is just wrong and deceptive. But that is what Clinton does.

Hillary Clinton Just Took A Shot At GOP Plans To Cut Social Security (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-privatize-social-security-just-wrong?utm_content=buffer45c18&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)


Hillary Clinton spoke out on her plan to save social security today, while campaigning in NH. This woman is amazing.

[Guest]

Clinton versio of the hope and change farcical musings.

[Guest]

Only in the vein of BHO is Hillary qualified. She's a lier, is deceitful, self absorbed, has very poor moral values and no ethics. So if this is the type of person you think is qualified to run for president, then that explains how BHO was elected twice.

[Guest]

Only in the vein of BHO is Hillary qualified. She's a lier, is deceitful, self absorbed, has very poor moral values and no ethics. So if this is the type of person you think is qualified to run for president, then that explains how BHO was elected twice.

:boom:

:boom:

[Guest]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Several posters have said Ruibo Cruz, et al will reduce social security but Clinton said she is going to protect social security.
The öperative"word is "said" Social security was enacted in 1934 and despite publicity to the contrary FDR was forced to agree to social security because of the usual extortion that goes on between the two parties. Politicians have been kicking this can (social security) down the road since then as it plays nicely to the masses. Folks this thread is sounding more and more like "my father can beat your father up"

Maybe it needs a rest?


Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1049531]Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Several posters have said Ruibo Cruz, et al will reduce social security but Clinton said she is going to protect social security.
--------

No, it is NOT the posters who have said that some of the Republican candidates will reduce Social Security retirement benefits. It has been said by THE Republican candidates themselves.

Personally, I am in favor of means testing for Social Security retirement benefits. If a retired person has enough savings and investments, they should not get the full amount of retirement and have it based on a sliding scale from a small reduction to full reduction.

Yes, everyone would still be forced to pay into SS and Medicare.

[Guest]

This is the biggest bunch of BS yet. Secret Service agents don't get to choose who they want to protect based on politics or personality. They either do the job they were hired to do or find other employment.

I`m the guy that wrote what you called B.S. I stand by what I said . This SS Agent was able to transfer to a different assignment which did not involve the First Family .
People forget that the SS is part of the US Treasury Department . Many SS Agents investigate securities and currency fraud .

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1049531]Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Several posters have said Ruibo Cruz, et al will reduce social security but Clinton said she is going to protect social security.
--------

No, it is NOT the posters who have said that some of the Republican candidates will reduce Social Security retirement benefits. It has been said by THE Republican candidates themselves.

Personally, I am in favor of means testing for Social Security retirement benefits. If a retired person has enough savings and investments, they should not get the full amount of retirement and have it based on a sliding scale from a small reduction to full reduction.

Yes, everyone would still be forced to pay into SS and Medicare.

So, how much of your Social Security are you willing to give up?

[Guest]

For those who are enthusiastic backers of Sec. Clinton for President . Please explain to us what you believe she will acomplish if she becomes the CEO of the USA .
I think that it would be insightful .

[Guest]

[quote=Guest;1049649]

So, how much of your Social Security are you willing to give up?

All of it. I current donate all of my Social Security to charity. I would continue to do that amount even if I did not receive Social Security.

So, how much of your Social Security are YOU willing to give up?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1049531]
Personally, I am in favor of means testing for Social Security retirement benefits. If a retired person has enough savings and investments, they should not get the full amount of retirement and have it based on a sliding scale from a small reduction to full reduction.

Yes, everyone would still be forced to pay into SS and Medicare.

Thanks for being honest ... and spoken like the true Socialist you are. You guys love to "force" people to do things as a general rule.

[Guest]

For those who are enthusiastic backers of Sec. Clinton for President . Please explain to us what you believe she will acomplish if she becomes the CEO of the USA .
I think that it would be insightful .

Actually, and better still, request some Rodham-Clinton supporter contrast her ACCOMPLISHMENTS with those of Carly Fiorina ... who really was a CEO. (worked her way up from secretary)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Carly_Fiorina.aspx