Clinton buying votes….again….no….yet!

[Guest]

Is there any other eason she would be aiming her campaign at a subject like this with all the other hot potatoe issues in the USA?

NO!

Hillary Clinton calls for raising minimum wage to $12 an hour - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-calls-for-raising-minimum-wage-to-12-an-hour-2015-11-04?dist=beforebell)

[Guest]

She is the eviler half of the Clinton duo. She is political scum at it's worst.

[Guest]

She is the eviler half of the Clinton duo. She is political scum at it's worst.

And that is being polite about the phony, lying, unethical, dishonest :censored: she really is!

[Guest]

And that is being polite about the phony, lying, unethical, dishonest :censored: she really is!

:thumbup:

[Guest]

Is there any other eason she would be aiming her campaign at a subject like this with all the other hot potatoe issues in the USA?

NO!

Hillary Clinton calls for raising minimum wage to $12 an hour - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hillary-clinton-calls-for-raising-minimum-wage-to-12-an-hour-2015-11-04?dist=beforebell)

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

And who said anybody owed a minimum wage person a "living" wage. Minimum wage jobs are just that...minimum wage....no surprise going in. The current view of some that all jobs are to be "living" wage jobs is totaly and completely partisan, buying the vote BS!

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

1. Raising the minimum wage will have little or no effect on poverty.

2. It will reduce the employment and have a harmful effect on those it is intended to help.

3. Hauling out Dan Quayle to make fun of is dripping with desperation.

"While the aim is to help workers, decades of economic research show that
minimum wages usually end up harming workers and the broader economy. Minimum wages particularly stifle job opportunities for low-skill
workers, youth, and minorities, which are the groups that policymakers are often trying to help with these policies. There is no “free lunch” when the government mandates a minimum wage. If the government requires that certain workers be paid higher wages, then businesses make adjustments to pay for the added costs, such as reducing hiring, cutting employee work hours, reducing benefits, and charging higher prices. Some policymakers may believe that companies simply absorb the costs of minimum wage increases through reduced profits, but that’s rarely the case. Instead, businesses rationally respond to such mandates by cutting employment
and making other decisions to maintain their net earnings. These behavioral responses usually offset the positive labor market results that policymakers
are hoping for."

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA701.pdf

It is simple common sense that it would work that way. Historically, it has never done any of those things that POLITICIANS preach about.

[Guest]

Yeah, the higher minimum wage is going to raise proces terribly. Add a few cents onto your beer is really going to harm you.

Dripping with desparation? No, I was just revisiting some Republican historical figure. Aren't you proud of Quayle?

As to the baloney from Cato, just pure Republican blather.

[Guest]

Yeah, the higher minimum wage is going to raise proces terribly. Add a few cents onto your beer is really going to harm you.

Dripping with desparation? No, I was just revisiting some Republican historical figure. Aren't you proud of Quayle?

As to the baloney from Cato, just pure Republican blather.

I do not agree with prices increasing and your sarcasm aimed at me is sort of stupid, isnt it. This is not about ME or YOU....it is supposed to be about helping those in need. If the pennies go up for my beer, guess what....it will go up for EVERYBODY, thus what has been solved.

You sincerely believe that raising the minimum wage will not affect jobs ? Anyone who has worked in real world, knows that those companies are not going to give up the money as a donation.....there WILL BE CUTS IN STAFF.

Do you honestly believe this is the manner in which to attack poverty since we all know, or those outside of politics know, it will not have any affect on poverty, and it WILL cost jobs

As to whether a few more pennies to me is important...IT IS NOT.....doing something for those in need is what is needed, not political talk.

Just to add, the last study done, and I do not recall the source nor the exact numbers, but asking you to think about it.....over 50% of those affected by an increase in minimum wage were NOT the people who needed it.

Instead of politicians talking to each other, insuring that companies can expand that have the better paying jobs, and press for attendance at schools to get an education, nothing will change. All the programs in the past to raise people out of poverty and need that were not based on self sufficient goals, and were only hand outs of whatever degree were abject failures.

I think Rubio hits a home run every time he speaks on this. He subscribes that the biggest problem facing this country is the breakdown in the family. I believe that totally.

I know the breakdown in the family is treated by the left, IN GENERAL, as religious preaching, politically incorrect, and many other reasons given not to address it or even acknowledge it, but THAT single component can be traced to our downfall in so many areas, INCLUDING this economic mess.

[Guest]

By the way, I ignored the Quayle remark because YOU are a study in someone who puts party before all, and feels that mocking people who carry a registration card different from yours is evil.

When I discuss anyone in any political forum of any party, I will always refer to an issue or a stand taken by the person.

I realize that is foreign to you, and your feeling is Republican = evil and that is the end of the story and then comes a little icon..boom, I think is the wording.

By the way, Dan Quayle was opposed to raising the minimum wage also I think, as many others do that the FEDERAL minimum wage should be abolished.

It is a function of the States and NOT FEDERAL.

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

And, the Democrat poster child for brains, Obama, calls Navy Corpsman, "Navy Corpseman" .

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.
When are the liberals going to understand the minimum wage jobs are entry level to the job force. They are not meant to be a career position sustaining a living wage. Do you know anyone who started working at McDonalds still working there?

[Guest]

When are the liberals going to understand the minimum wage jobs are entry level to the job force. They are not meant to be a career position sustaining a living wage. Do you know anyone who started working at McDonalds still working there?

Probably never. Unfortunately, when people are either too lazy or too stupid to advance themselves, jobs such as those offered by McDonald's do become careers.

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

How can you have Free Enterprise if the gov controls your business? Minimum wages are always starting wages, usually for jobs that teenagers (used to) take or as a second, part-time job. No one stays at starting level is they stay at a job for a few months. Let private business adjust their employee wages according to their profits and you see a flourishing economy. If the gov dictate wages levels, then you have a stagnant economy and less employment growth. Even liberal economics prove that. The gov ruins the economy when it interferes with business.

[Guest]

Maybe to give minimum wage earners a chance at a living wage and to let them know she is on their side instead of ignoring living wages like Republicans

By the way, your Republican poster child for brains (Dan Quale) spelled "potato" the same as you.

it is crystal clear there is a definite lack of business/accounting understanding.
If a business generates only so much margin (look it up!) that is all there is to pay wages. So when the government makes a business raise wages there is only one think a business person can do. Give the increases to some and let enough go that allow paying the increase. Or how about cutting hours back so that the wages paid still match the amount left to pay wages.

The arbitray raising of expenses (wages) will sffect as many or more people negatively than the top billing raised wages.
Total and complete lack of business understanding by the politicians that are buying votes and the lemminga who support without knowing what they are doing.

[Guest]

it is crystal clear there is a definite lack of business/accounting understanding.
If a business generates only so much margin (look it up!) that is all there is to pay wages. So when the government makes a business raise wages there is only one think a business person can do. Give the increases to some and let enough go that allow paying the increase. Or how about cutting hours back so that the wages paid still match the amount left to pay wages.

The arbitray raising of expenses (wages) will sffect as many or more people negatively than the top billing raised wages.
Total and complete lack of business understanding by the politicians that are buying votes and the lemminga who support without knowing what they are doing.

Excuse me, but you are attempting to educate a liberal. Liberals believe that all business owners are evil and make their money illegally. Besides, if you don't make a large enough profit to pay your employees their higher wages, then you should do like the gov and borrow it and not pay it back. The entitled don't understand responsibility, free enterprise or capitalism. All of those words are not PC and banned from liberal vocabulary.

[Guest]

it is crystal clear there is a definite lack of business/accounting understanding.
If a business generates only so much margin (look it up!) that is all there is to pay wages. So when the government makes a business raise wages there is only one think a business person can do. Give the increases to some and let enough go that allow paying the increase. Or how about cutting hours back so that the wages paid still match the amount left to pay wages.

The arbitray raising of expenses (wages) will sffect as many or more people negatively than the top billing raised wages.
Total and complete lack of business understanding by the politicians that are buying votes and the lemminga who support without knowing what they are doing.

A whole lot of you are making statements of fact, raising minimum wage will guarantee people will,lose their jobs in every field of business, that can't be backed up. Economists have argued for years on both side of the effect on jobs by raising minimum wage. This isn't something that is set in concrete.

Minimum wage jobs are no longer the property of young people entering the job market. A reasonable increase in the minimum is long overdue. The key word there is reasonable.

Concerning Hillary buying votes with promise of raising the minimum wage, the assumption is people making minimum actually follow politics. The people doing these jobs aren't smartest in the world as evidenced by the work that they are doing.

[Guest]

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. It's obvious that minimum wages was not enough to keep the Clintons from stealing.

[Guest]

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. It's obvious that minimum wages was not enough to keep the Clintons from stealing.
Let's see what Politifact says:

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/)

[Guest]

Let's see what Politifact says:

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/)

Even though it appears that the Clintons may have "misappropriated" slightly less than the amount some have claimed, they are still dishonest and cannot be trusted.

[Guest]

Even though it appears that the Clintons may have "misappropriated" slightly less than the amount some have claimed, they are still dishonest and cannot be trusted.

Chi, you know they stole. Why do you insist on defending them? I can give you more links that insist they were thieves than you can disputing it.

[Guest]

Clintons Return White House Furniture - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856)

https://www.americarisingpac.org/bill-clinton-jokes-president-taking-govt-property-white-house-like-hillary/

Clintons Will Return Any Gifts Found to Belong to White House - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html)

Regardless of the exact figure of the theft, any figure that has been attributed to the Clintons when they vacated the White House is grand larceny and a felony in any of the 50 states.

[Guest]

Clintons Return White House Furniture - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856)

https://www.americarisingpac.org/bill-clinton-jokes-president-taking-govt-property-white-house-like-hillary/

Clintons Will Return Any Gifts Found to Belong to White House - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html)

Regardless of the exact figure of the theft, any figure that has been attributed to the Clintons when they vacated the White House is grand larceny and a felony in any of the 50 states.

Clinton law = you are only guilty if you get caught.
If you get caught then lie your a$$ off while making the offense go away or hiding it anyway possible accompanied by the following:

we were not aware there was anything illegal. Then blame it on the cleaning lady!

[Guest]

Let's see what Politifact says:

Viral image claims Clintons stole $200k in furniture, china and artwork from White House | PunditFact (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/)

While I acknowledge that some of the claims against both Bill and Hillary Clinton are exaggerated to be sure....

I am constantly amazed at how those on the left will do anything to defend these two of any crime or anything bad. There is so much that has been verified and shown to be true, I just wonder what these two have done to earn such loyalty in the face of facts.

Is it really that you all think it is truely a right wing conspiracy of such a vast span, and I mean it would need to be huge. that all of those folks who have come forth, and all the lies told on national television by this couple were manufactured in some manner ?

[Guest]

While I acknowledge that some of the claims against both Bill and Hillary Clinton are exaggerated to be sure....

I am constantly amazed at how those on the left will do anything to defend these two of any crime or anything bad. There is so much that has been verified and shown to be true, I just wonder what these two have done to earn such loyalty in the face of facts.

Is it really that you all think it is truely a right wing conspiracy of such a vast span, and I mean it would need to be huge. that all of those folks who have come forth, and all the lies told on national television by this couple were manufactured in some manner ?

Ignorant liberals have been assured/brainwashed that it is ALL a Republican conspiracy. At least that is what Hilary and Debbie Whatshername is insisting and they plan to stick with it.

In my opinion, Hilary should be hung as a traitor. America would not miss her and I doubt Bill would either. About the only person that would miss her would be her daughter.

[Guest]

Perhaps the Clintons can buy some of those votes with the laundered funds as detailed here.

Crooks, thieves, and liars...but who cares? - Maggie's Farm (http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/27231-Crooks,-thieves,-and-liars...but-who-cares.html)

[Guest]

Ignorant liberals have been assured/brainwashed that it is ALL a Republican conspiracy. At least that is what Hilary and Debbie Whatshername is insisting and they plan to stick with it.

In my opinion, Hilary should be hung as a traitor. America would not miss her and I doubt Bill would either. About the only person that would miss her would be her daughter.

Don't forget that the crapweasel George W. Bush and his fellow crapweasel Cheney would be tried as war criminals if they left the USA.

[Guest]

Don't forget that the crapweasel George W. Bush and his fellow crapweasel Cheney would be tried as war criminals if they left the USA.

Nice try, but if Bush would be tried, so would Kerry, Clinton, and a majority of congress. Nope, no wrong doing there. You wish, but the only criminal right now is Hilary "the liar" Clinton. Of course, Obama is complicit also, but no one is going to put the first black president on trial. Sorry about bursting your bubble. Naw, not really.

[Guest]

On a nice day like today, why aren't you out playing golf, at the square, or enjoying a Happy Hour instead of ranting on the computer?

When I retire in quite a few more years, I will not be wasting them in such tripe.

Watch out for the black helicopters. The NSA does scrutinize right wing chat rooms, you know.

[Guest]

Don't forget that the crapweasel George W. Bush and his fellow crapweasel Cheney would be tried as war criminals if they left the USA.

I can hear it in the democrat talking point meetings...."what would we be talking about if W was not for W????

I don't care what the subject the lamo response will come out every time.
The play book must really be very, VERY thin.
Or the string broke!

[Guest]

Now that it's been brought up, when was the last time W or Cheney left the country?

[Guest]

Now that it's been brought up, when was the last time W or Cheney left the country?

What is wrong with you people and I mean on both sides of the aisle.

Have you nothing better to do than rehash history and talk as if you knew something...

"Our ruling

The meme on social media said that Bush and Cheney are "unable to visit Europe due to outstanding warrants." The claim that there are "outstanding warrants" is flat wrong. And while it’s theoretically possible for a national court to issue an arrest warrant against either man, as was done with Pinochet, there is no sign of that happening. We rate the claim False."

Are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney unable to visit Europe due to threat of arrest? | PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/17/facebook-posts/are-george-w-bush-dick-cheney-unable-visit-europe-/)

My advice is that you all, ON BOTH SIDES, get your heads out of your backsides, find out what is happening FOR REAL today and discuss this.

This is truly an excersize for 12 year olds.

[Guest]

Now that it's been brought up, when was the last time W or Cheney left the country?

Well Chi, why don't you get over it? Bush and Cheney aren't the issue. This inept pseudo-president is on his way out, doing his best to hose up the country on his way out, and we have a criminal running for the position as the next president.

Now, the thread is about Clinton, not Bush, not Cheney, not Trump, not Carson.....just Clinton. If you want to bring up Obama because she worked for him, fine. If you need attention, why don't you go talk on the Coyote thread?

OR, why don't you watch the debates tonight so you can get an idea of which candidate might be the next president. One that won't be tying up taxpayer funds on a criminal investigation.

[Guest]

MD, why the j.o. attitude. Just say you don't know and don't care. BTW, I'm watching tonight just for Maria Bartrimomo. And Trump, of course

[Guest]

MD, why the j.o. attitude. Just say you don't know and don't care. BTW, I'm watching tonight just for Maria Bartrimomo. And Trump, of course

Is it really that hard to stay on topic? "attitude?" Liberals diverting or blaming someone else gives me the "attitude." Can't you converse on a subject without either being defensive or diverting elsewhere? If you are embarrassed for Hilary and don't wish to discuss the issues, then just don't comment. Don't worry, there will be a lot of folks talking about Obama and his failures (the latest was the greatest) so you don't have to worry about talking about Hilary for a while. But, that is for another thread.

[Guest]

Well Chi, why don't you get over it? Bush and Cheney aren't the issue. This inept pseudo-president is on his way out, doing his best to hose up the country on his way out, and we have a criminal running for the position as the next president.

Now, the thread is about Clinton, not Bush, not Cheney, not Trump, not Carson.....just Clinton. If you want to bring up Obama because she worked for him, fine. If you need attention, why don't you go talk on the Coyote thread?

OR, why don't you watch the debates tonight so you can get an idea of which candidate might be the next president. One that won't be tying up taxpayer funds on a criminal investigation.

MD, how about the 4 million dollars already spent by the Benghazi investigative boys? That was taxpayer money and Gowdy proved himself inept and Mrs. Clinton took a victory lap toward her being President.

No, it is about Bush and Cheney as war criminals who lied to America.

[Guest]

MD, how about the 4 million dollars already spent by the Benghazi investigative boys? That was taxpayer money and Gowdy proved himself inept and Mrs. Clinton took a victory lap toward her being President.

No, it is about Bush and Cheney as war criminals who lied to America.

Interesting.....

A thread about Hillary Clinton in 2015 is about Bush and Cheney. Not sure how to respond to something like that without an insult, so will simply say that you better get up to the present and see what is going on.

While I have my problems with just about any of these comm (and I might add, those on that comm. are not "boys"...your choice of how you express itself is however symptomatic of boys),, let's remember they are still in session and that group discovered Ms Clinton trying to circumvent the rules with her email, and they are not done yet, primarily because of Ms Clinton' devious actions.

As far as cost is concerned, based on the WH efforts on training folks to fight ISIS, that amounts to ...what...2 men ?

I would suggest you do two things....first get up to date and drop the "company line" that isn't even that anymore, and do something very fresh ad new...post some reason for America to trust YOUR candidate.

[Guest]

MD, how about the 4 million dollars already spent by the Benghazi investigative boys? That was taxpayer money and Gowdy proved himself inept and Mrs. Clinton took a victory lap toward her being President.

No, it is about Bush and Cheney as war criminals who lied to America.

Since you are so outraged about the $4 million spent on the Benghazi investigation, I'm surprised that you didn't express the same concern over the $1.6 billion that was allocated to establish the Obama Care states coops that can't be accounted for.

[Guest]

MD, how about the 4 million dollars already spent by the Benghazi investigative boys? That was taxpayer money and Gowdy proved himself inept and Mrs. Clinton took a victory lap toward her being President.

No, it is about Bush and Cheney as war criminals who lied to America.

:cus: BS!

[Guest]

MD, how about the 4 million dollars already spent by the Benghazi investigative boys? That was taxpayer money and Gowdy proved himself inept and Mrs. Clinton took a victory lap toward her being President.

No, it is about Bush and Cheney as war criminals who lied to America.

Dear Guest: I absolutely agree with you that far too much money and time has been spent on Benghazi. All of this and the issues of a personal server could have been avoided if the Clintons were honest and honorable people and at minimum at least honest enough to admit their wrong doing. However their modus operandi beginning from back in the days of Arkansas has been to deny, stall and feigned indignation; even when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Mea coupa's are for little people . Its incomprehensible that any decent human being would defend these crooked artful dodgers. To put the American people through this nonsense and distracting America's attention from more critical issues is in itself criminal and selfish of the Clinton's . Like mobsters they thumb their noses at decent law abiding citizens.

And not only was a comparison between the Clinton's, Bush and Cheney off topic the comparison was misplaced despite one's opinion. On the one hand your are addressing intentional criminal acts for selfish gains to differences of opinion on judgements made during a dangerous period for this nation following 9/11. People may not agree with what these two men did but we should let history determine their fate. My bet is that history will come don favorably on their desire to protect this nation.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Chi just wants to divert from the uncomfortable subject. That and agitate the conservatives. He enjoys asking unrelated questions, just to bait and switch. Sorry Chi, but you are on your own. Not interested.

Hilary, the criminal has some credibility with the college age voters, but that's because they like to worship criminals like they do Hollywood pretenders. Any adult with common sense knows that she would be worst than the lowest rated GOP candidate. Hopefully, Hilary will be in jail before the general election, and thus less of a threat to America. We already have the worst president and enemy of America currently in the White house.

Obama wasted billions on bankrupt energy companies, so a few million to ensure justice is not unreasonable. Especially to ensure we don't elect another enemy of Freedom.

[Guest]

Chi just wants to divert from the uncomfortable subject. That and agitate the conservatives. He enjoys asking unrelated questions, just to bait and switch. Sorry Chi, but you are on your own. Not interested.

Hilary, the criminal has some credibility with the college age voters, but that's because they like to worship criminals like they do Hollywood pretenders. Any adult with common sense knows that she would be worst than the lowest rated GOP candidate. Hopefully, Hilary will be in jail before the general election, and thus less of a threat to America. We already have the worst president and enemy of America currently in the White house.

Obama wasted billions on bankrupt energy companies, so a few million to ensure justice is not unreasonable. Especially to ensure we don't elect another enemy of Freedom.

It appears that Chi has joined the band of trolls.

[Guest]

It appears that Chi has joined the band of trolls.

He's a good guy though. I need to cut him some slack.

[Guest]

It's obvious from the debate last night that increasing the minimum wage is not a happening event with a Republican victory. So now the battle lines are drawn, and the fight will be on. Running against it may alienate a large segment of voters. Choose battles carefully.

[Guest]

It's obvious from the debate last night that increasing the minimum wage is not a happening event with a Republican victory. So now the battle lines are drawn, and the fight will be on. Running against it may alienate a large segment of voters. Choose battles carefully.

Absolutely right! The Republican poll leaders all said they are against a raise in minimum wage. This means the majority of American youths will vote en masse for Hillary, blacks will vote for Hillary, working poor will vote for Hillary, Hispanics will vote for Hillary, most women will vote for Hillary, and the college educated men and women under 55 vote for Hillary.

Remember the electoral college rules! Florida goes Blue! Thanks to Tampa-Clearwater, Miami-Dade, and Orlando!!!

Hillary wins - America wins!

[Guest]

Absolutely right! The Republican poll leaders all said they are against a raise in minimum wage. This means the majority of American youths will vote en masse for Hillary, blacks will vote for Hillary, working poor will vote for Hillary, Hispanics will vote for Hillary, most women will vote for Hillary, and the college educated men and women under 55 vote for Hillary.

Remember the electoral college rules! Florida goes Blue! Thanks to Tampa-Clearwater, Miami-Dade, and Orlando!!!

Hillary wins - America wins!

Same old tune. You sing it at ever opportunity and it is getting tiresome. You make one assumption, and that is that these groups will and do vote in mass. Perhaps, perhaps not, we shall see.

[Guest]

[/B]
Same old tune. You sing it at ever opportunity and it is getting tiresome. You make one assumption, and that is that these groups will and do vote in mass. Perhaps, perhaps not, we shall see.



Those blocs did vote that way in 2008 and 2012. With so much to gain from a Hillary vote and so much to lose from whatever Republican, it will happen once again in 2016.

[Guest]

Please also remember that at this time of year in 2007 Clinton was the lead candidate and all but coronated. Then an UNKNOWN blows right past her to get the nomination.

AND.....at that time her resume' was less tarnished than it is now. Her physical stature and appearance was certainly a whole lot better than it is now. What the time since her last blow out proves, is she is what she is and time only makes it ALL that much worse.

The problem for the democrats is they painted themselves in a corner by not surfacing any plausible candidates.

Biden? Gore? Waiting for the other shoe(s) to drop?

[Guest]

Please also remember that at this time of year in 2007 Clinton was the lead candidate and all but coronated. Then an UNKNOWN blows right past her to get the nomination.

AND.....at that time her resume' was less tarnished than it is now. Her physical stature and appearance was certainly a whole lot better than it is now. What the time since her last blow out proves, is she is what she is and time only makes it ALL that much worse.

The problem for the democrats is they painted themselves in a corner by not surfacing any plausible candidates.

Biden? Gore? Waiting for the other shoe(s) to drop?

Would you care to make a wager of an ice-cold Yeungling that Hillary gets the nomination?

[Guest]

Would you care to make a wager of an ice-cold Yeungling that Hillary gets the nomination?

Can she still be nominated once she is indicted? Just wondering.

[Guest]

Would you care to make a wager of an ice-cold Yeungling that Hillary gets the nomination?

Thank you for the offer. No!
In that unlikely circumstance I would not want to further the dilusion by helping celebrate the party actually nominating a person of questionable ethics and honesty as the best their party has to offer.

[Guest]

It's obvious from the debate last night that increasing the minimum wage is not a happening event with a Republican victory. So now the battle lines are drawn, and the fight will be on. Running against it may alienate a large segment of voters. Choose battles carefully.

Please remind me why we need the FEDERAL government involved in this. Individual states should be the place.

You people want FEDERAL involvement in everything.

[Guest]

Apparently someone is assuming that there will be a large liberal turnout to vote. Without Obama, there won't be a large black turnout. There never is, and it won't be any different. Do you really think that anyone that is already making $15 an hour cares if the minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour? You must think that every voter is pretty shallow if they are worried more about minimum wages than about employment, the economy, terrorism and the illegal invasion of aliens crossing unhindered across the border, taking their jobs. And if you don't think that young Americans are worried about illegals taking their jobs, then you can't think that they will vote based upon minimum wages.

I believe women are smarter than to be grouped by the likes of you, as being shallow enough to vote for a known criminal just because she is a female. Hilary won't get any of the republican female voters, so she may get half the total of women voters.

Independents are not fooled by Shrilary so they will likely make the difference in who wins the election. Right now they are leaning to the right of center. Minimum wages won't be an issue for them.

So, I would not start celebrating for Shrilary just yet. Even if she is on the ballot, she may not fare that well when it comes down to actual votes.

And to the troll that insists that shrilary will get the Florida eletoral votes. One state doesn't make the country. And remember that if Rubio is running against her, she will likely lose Florida.

College kids aren't going to vote based on min wages because they all think they deserve management wages when they graduate with a degree. Half the college kids won't be voting anyway.

There is an FBI investigation of Shrillary's criminal activity regarding national security. Some states have mentioned that they may not allow her on the ballot because of the investigation. I don't know how true that part is, so I can't swear to it. It would be interesting if that happens.

[Guest]

Only liberals will make a war out of something so trivial. Pathetic. Instead of working on unemployment (record number of folks quit working), poverty (record number still on food stamps) the pathetic economic growth, the national debt, the high cost of health care, terrorism, inflation, etc. you want to make war on minimum wages, which hardly relates to anyone. You tried to make it about abortion, but the GOP is not taking the bait. You tried to make it about gay marriage, but the GOP is not taking the bait. You are trying to make it about "black lives matter" but NO ONE is taking the bait. So, you only have minimum wages as a defense for Hilary......something for her to run on. Hmmm, pretty pathetic.

[Guest]

Apparently someone is assuming that there will be a large liberal turnout to vote. Without Obama, there won't be a large black turnout. There never is, and it won't be any different. Do you really think that anyone that is already making $15 an hour cares if the minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour? You must think that every voter is pretty shallow if they are worried more about minimum wages than about employment, the economy, terrorism and the illegal invasion of aliens crossing unhindered across the border, taking their jobs. And if you don't think that young Americans are worried about illegals taking their jobs, then you can't think that they will vote based upon minimum wages.

I believe women are smarter than to be grouped by the likes of you, as being shallow enough to vote for a known criminal just because she is a female. Hilary won't get any of the republican female voters, so she may get half the total of women voters.

Independents are not fooled by Shrilary so they will likely make the difference in who wins the election. Right now they are leaning to the right of center. Minimum wages won't be an issue for them.

So, I would not start celebrating for Shrilary just yet. Even if she is on the ballot, she may not fare that well when it comes down to actual votes.

And to the troll that insists that shrilary will get the Florida eletoral votes. One state doesn't make the country. And remember that if Rubio is running against her, she will likely lose Florida.

College kids aren't going to vote based on min wages because they all think they deserve management wages when they graduate with a degree. Half the college kids won't be voting anyway.

There is an FBI investigation of Shrillary's criminal activity regarding national security. Some states have mentioned that they may not allow her on the ballot because of the investigation. I don't know how true that part is, so I can't swear to it. It would be interesting if that happens.

She will be on the ballot and will escape any federal prosecution. The WH will not allow that to happen to his party.

Two things however....

1. I am "hearing" and have no site to cite, simply some political professionals I know, tell me there is great concern in the Democratic Party of "less than enthusiastic" voter turnout spurred by backlash on this candidate. I suppose the Sanders crowds and enthisiasm are also an indicator of deep seeded problems with the Clinton candidacy.

2.. I also hear, not JUST from operatives but in addition insiders in DC and the beginnings of news reports, that there is a deep distrust, etc of the Obama WH. If voter apathy had not done in Romney, he would not be in the WH, and I cannot wait for the inevitable "tell all" books to come. Jarrett and company will certainly be uncovered.

[Guest]

She will be on the ballot and will escape any federal prosecution. The WH will not allow that to happen to his party.

Two things however....

1. I am "hearing" and have no site to cite, simply some political professionals I know, tell me there is great concern in the Democratic Party of "less than enthusiastic" voter turnout spurred by backlash on this candidate. I suppose the Sanders crowds and enthisiasm are also an indicator of deep seeded problems with the Clinton candidacy.

2.. I also hear, not JUST from operatives but in addition insiders in DC and the beginnings of news reports, that there is a deep distrust, etc of the Obama WH. If voter apathy had not done in Romney, he would not be in the WH, and I cannot wait for the inevitable "tell all" books to come. Jarrett and company will certainly be uncovered.

Once Obama leaves the White House, those closest to him will only be more than happy to spill their guts for a book deal. Liberals are known for eating their young.

[Guest]

$15 minimum wage is extremely high in some areas of the country and extremely low in other parts of the country. That's why the Fed Gov needs to allow states to handle this kind of legislation. The Fed Gov has it's own problems, and doesn't need additional responsibilities such as this. We don't need a gov nanny.

[Guest]

Apparently someone is assuming that there will be a large liberal turnout to vote. Without Obama, there won't be a large black turnout. There never is, and it won't be any different. Do you really think that anyone that is already making $15 an hour cares if the minimum wage goes up to $15 an hour? You must think that every voter is pretty shallow if they are worried more about minimum wages than about employment, the economy, terrorism and the illegal invasion of aliens crossing unhindered across the border, taking their jobs. And if you don't think that young Americans are worried about illegals taking their jobs, then you can't think that they will vote based upon minimum wages.

I believe women are smarter than to be grouped by the likes of you, as being shallow enough to vote for a known criminal just because she is a female. Hilary won't get any of the republican female voters, so she may get half the total of women voters.

Independents are not fooled by Shrilary so they will likely make the difference in who wins the election. Right now they are leaning to the right of center. Minimum wages won't be an issue for them.

So, I would not start celebrating for Shrilary just yet. Even if she is on the ballot, she may not fare that well when it comes down to actual votes.

And to the troll that insists that shrilary will get the Florida eletoral votes. One state doesn't make the country. And remember that if Rubio is running against her, she will likely lose Florida.

College kids aren't going to vote based on min wages because they all think they deserve management wages when they graduate with a degree. Half the college kids won't be voting anyway.

There is an FBI investigation of Shrillary's criminal activity regarding national security. Some states have mentioned that they may not allow her on the ballot because of the investigation. I don't know how true that part is, so I can't swear to it. It would be interesting if that happens.
When you went from Hillary to Shrillary did you just cross the troll line?

[Guest]

When you went from Hillary to Shrillary did you just cross the troll line?

I am not the OP, but I would say no if the name Shillary fits...and it does.

[Guest]

When you went from Hillary to Shrillary did you just cross the troll line?

CHI.....I am one who criticizes you,and your little pals, often for your little zings.

HOWEVER I agree that was not necessary at all

That sarcasm is not necessary, HOWEVER, having said that....the poster was responding to a member of your little gang and she is infamous on here for repeating the same things over and over totally unrelated to any real issues, ridiculing and she can get under your skin a bit. THAT is the motive of your gang I assume, but it does go both ways, and is unnecessary.

It would be nice to read one of you actually discussing issues or telling everyone why your candidate is best for the country.

They should have both an adult and children section on here.

[Guest]

It is obvious the postings and the media who are in favor of ALWAYS increasing the minimum wage....they have no knowledge what the impact will be on small businesses and the different way the bigger ones will run their business.

There is only so much money left in the pot after all the bills are paid to pay the help.

It will come out to be more money.....FOR FEWER PEOPLE!!


If $15 per hour is what the minimum wage for no experience, no education, no knowledge, no qualifications (until trained) what will raisng the floor closer to those with some skills do? Of course it will incite them to require more for contributing and knowing more.

The other very important aspect of this entire charade is that minimum wage was never ever intended to provide a living wage or support a family and all the other perks of life that all of a sudden have become part of the equation to warrant higher minimum wages.

Politicians and supporters of increasing minimum wages who have no idea or understand anything having to do with running a business or profit and loss.

Only buying votes and providing more handouts......with absolutely no idea what they are doing!

[Guest]

here is an interesting historical chart (for those who understand charts).

So the proposal is to more than double what is the current minimum wage of $7.25 (as shown).

The chart wouls loudly shout......REALLY!!

Also check out the timing of the last largest increases.....sometime in the last 7 years!!

Totally and completely out to lunch.

Fix the economy and create more jobs so people (who want to) can advance their skills and their incomes. The rest can stay behind at truly MINIMUM WAGES.......as chosen.

[Guest]

oooopss here is the chart:

Minimum wage since 1938 - CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/)

:undecided:

[Guest]

CHI.....I am one who criticizes you,and your little pals, often for your little zings.

HOWEVER I agree that was not necessary at all

That sarcasm is not necessary, HOWEVER, having said that....the poster was responding to a member of your little gang and she is infamous on here for repeating the same things over and over totally unrelated to any real issues, ridiculing and she can get under your skin a bit. THAT is the motive of your gang I assume, but it does go both ways, and is unnecessary.

It would be nice to read one of you actually discussing issues or telling everyone why your candidate is best for the country.

They should have both an adult and children section on here.
Your post makes a lot of sense. The Guest disguise makes it hard on all who want to have a real discourse where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged. The malcontents and trolls would be tagged.

[Guest]

Your post makes a lot of sense. The Guest disguise makes it hard on all who want to have a real discourse where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged. The malcontents and trolls would be tagged.

Chi-town, are you kidding? How can you call anyone else a troll? And as far as the difference between "guest" and a moniker like "chi-town" is what???? All forums are anonymous, no matter what name you attach to it.

[Guest]

When you went from Hillary to Shrillary did you just cross the troll line?

That was the kinder of two identifiers I have for her. The other one ryhmes with witch, as in the wicked witch of OZ (DC).

Sorry chi, if I am not well versed in PC. How about PR (political rhetoric)?

[Guest]

Your post makes a lot of sense. The Guest disguise makes it hard on all who want to have a real discourse where thoughts and ideas can be exchanged. The malcontents and trolls would be tagged.

I am a bit confused.

YOU are part of the little band of guys and gals who mock people on here. For whatever reason, we see your name, but most know who the others are. I suppose it is good for them to "hide" behind GUEST, but most are not ashamed of their views, but trolling under you real name does get you a rep I suppose.

I wish the guest thing would go away. I am not embarrassed by my views and have posted them here for years.

If we got rid of GUEST, it might give me pause when I reply to your troll gang however., because I get goaded by their immaturity a lot

[Guest]

AJ, BTK, MD, et al. You see me...I see you. Who cares? This forum wouldn't be nearly as interesting without your interactions (or this thread). Unfortunately, we need some new blood in this game or it will just be the gang of 6 vs. the gang of trolls.

[Guest]

AJ, BTK, MD, et al. You see me...I see you. Who cares? This forum wouldn't be nearly as interesting without your interactions (or this thread). Unfortunately, we need some new blood in this game or it will just be the gang of 6 vs. the gang of trolls.

First of all, if you see this as a "game" then my expectations of exchanging ideas will never be met !!! That "game" remark really stands out to me.

Next, I have asked and investigated and can tell you with no much fear of contradiction that the "gang of 6" never existed and does not exist now at all. That was a term used by ONE poster and he passed it on and it was begun because there were a number of posters who wanted an exchange of ideas and thus posted them. There was this other small group, and while I do not like the use of the name troll, that fits them. They had zero interest in exchanging ideas, simply wanted to create havoc and have fun among themselves. So, that mistaken group never existed and does not exist in any number less than or more than 6 in anyway.

Actually, the fact that you mention that term tells my your group.

I suppose you sum it up now that I know where you are coming from. To you and your pals, this is a game to be played. To others it is a forum to exchange ideas.

[Guest]

I might add....the "gang of trolls" is a new term and I know the person who coined it.

There are a few posters who have been thrown off this board at various times over the years. They, I suppose, feel a bit more entitled than most on here,and feel a cut above. They demostrated that over the years and have been thrown out of here a few times.

That group coined the GANG OF SIX thing in order to mock, because that is what these folks do. They have lied on here, connived on here and played silly little school games and when they got caught, they got pitched.

The GUEST thing here in political takes the pressure off the admin which I am sure was their intent; ie, let the dirty kids play in their own area and we will not even have to respond to complaints (which was the primary reason for the downfall of the original political forum).

The constant repeating of that phrase prompted a few posters to respond by calling those mocking posts and referring to them as a gang of trolls, which in fact they are in every respect of the definition.

[Guest]

I might add....the "gang of trolls" is a new term and I know the person who coined it.

There are a few posters who have been thrown off this board at various times over the years. They, I suppose, feel a bit more entitled than most on here,and feel a cut above. They demostrated that over the years and have been thrown out of here a few times.

That group coined the GANG OF SIX thing in order to mock, because that is what these folks do. They have lied on here, connived on here and played silly little school games and when they got caught, they got pitched.

The GUEST thing here in political takes the pressure off the admin which I am sure was their intent; ie, let the dirty kids play in their own area and we will not even have to respond to complaints (which was the primary reason for the downfall of the original political forum).

The constant repeating of that phrase prompted a few posters to respond by calling those mocking posts and referring to them as a gang of trolls, which in fact they are in every respect of the definition.

:thumbup: