Why Hillary Clinton is Clearly Qualfied to be President

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
 
Thread Tools
  #436  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:11 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Barack Obama claims deficit has decreased by two-thirds since taking office | PolitiFact

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.
There has not been a surplus since Eisenhower. Check out the climbing national debt. When they claim they are reducing the deficit, they are referring to the BUDGET deficit. That means that they are reducing the amount OVER the budget that they spend. Unfortunately, since Obama never had a budget, he can say anything he wishes.
Clinton did NOT have a budget. Go to Treasurydirect.gov and look at the stats. He signed a budget for Bush's first year that was unrealistic. There was no pay down of the national debt, therefore no reduced debt.
  #437  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:12 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
There has not been a surplus since Eisenhower. Check out the climbing national debt. When they claim they are reducing the deficit, they are referring to the BUDGET deficit. That means that they are reducing the amount OVER the budget that they spend. Unfortunately, since Obama never had a budget, he can say anything he wishes.
Clinton did NOT have a budget. Go to Treasurydirect.gov and look at the stats. He signed a budget for Bush's first year that was unrealistic. There was no pay down of the national debt, therefore no reduced debt.
Correction: Clinton did NOT have a surplus.
  #438  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:15 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
As stated by another female candidate.....you can't put lipstick on a pig (or something like that).
I believe that quote suits this subject very well.
  #439  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:25 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
So much chatter on here about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. How many people actually know the purpose of the Clinton Foundation? I suggest you actually research the topic BEFORE writing your pathetic posts. You will find it is a charitable foundation that has helped milliions of people around the world. Of course, to most of the right wing nuts - and gang of 6 - helping people is not what they are about.
Gotta love it. I guess you didn't read or hear about what was recently revealed about the so-called Clinton "charity?" Look it up and see what a small percentage actually goes to "charity." Do you liberals purposely move about life with blinders.
  #440  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:37 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
This is just the same old ultra-conservative hash that is rehashed one more time. There is no need for moral outrage because there is no wrong doing. Admit it, the conservatives are terrified of Mrs. Clinton because she is a strong and competent woman. She is a smart person and is heads and shoulders above ANY Republican candidate.

Once again, remember the demographics of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party. The demographics are totally in place for Mrs. Clinton to win the presidency. Can you dispute that? NO, you cannot.
I am sure that you are basing your OPINION of Billary on gender bias. And you comment is purely OPINION. And as far as demographics is concerned, you have obviously discounted the Independent voter. Right now, I believe you will find that the Independent voter is not so struck with Billary as you.
  #441  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:46 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Gotta love it. I guess you didn't read or hear about what was recently revealed about the so-called Clinton "charity?" Look it up and see what a small percentage actually goes to "charity." Do you liberals purposely move about life with blinders.
I sure do not know anything about this charity but the one that caught my attention recently.....

"When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the clubs finances.
Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clintons appearance as from Rices, according to the sources and tax filings.



Read more: Clintons charge big fees to small groups - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO

Now in the link it mentioned that she gave it to her own The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. You would think that with al the scrutiny...well, anyway that charity is under the gun....

Read here about their fundraising techniques...

‘Hillary Clinton Sold Her Soul When They Accepted That Money’ - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO Magazine

AND in addition we have all heard about Mr Blumenthal, the gentleman in many of her emails in question whom she said was a friend and not an advisor...

"Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.
Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons global philanthropy in 2009 not long after advising Hillary Clintons presidential campaign at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources."



Read more: Clinton Foundation paid Sidney Blumenthal $10,000 per month while he advised on Libya - POLITICO

These are from POLITICO...not a far right wing conspiracy, and similar articles have appeared in the New York Times, obviously not a Republican foot soldier.

I don't know how the Democratic party can allow her to carry the mantle of this party. If you read the last link you will find even employees of the Foundation have lots of big questions about the money being spent.
  #442  
Old 07-08-2015, 04:55 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wall Street makes money for itself
  #443  
Old 07-08-2015, 06:27 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
Wall Street makes money for itself
you forgot the other part.....and for it's investors.
  #444  
Old 07-08-2015, 07:52 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Without wall st. many here would not have their retirement.
  #445  
Old 07-08-2015, 08:02 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Old lady clinton

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
WOW!

Some people are so creative with their imagination.


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

THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT
This person has done nothing. Clintons have the money and the only thing left is power. You can't trust anything she says.
  #446  
Old 07-08-2015, 08:40 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"WASHINGTON -- One day after Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said she "never had a subpoena" for the emails she sent while secretary of state, House Republicans on Wednesday released a document appearing to contradict her -- namely, the subpoena they'd served Clinton earlier this year."

NOW recall the fiasco with her husband on what is the meaning of "having sex" ?

NOW we have the debate on what is the meaning of

"When Clinton on Tuesday said she'd "never had a subpoena," that appears to be contradicted by the subpoena House Republicans issued her in March. But it depends on what the meaning of the word "had" is"

House Republicans Release The Subpoena Hillary Clinton Said She Never Received For Her Emails

And other good reading...

A Fact-Check of Hillary Clinton
  #447  
Old 07-09-2015, 05:38 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

She's a liar, just like her husband. They are arrogant and could care less what anyone else thinks of them.
  #448  
Old 07-09-2015, 07:12 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is obviously a thread of interest with over 10,000 hits.
Even though it is probably only ten of us or so with repeated hits to see the latest yarn being spun on this corrupt "lady".

Why is a person with so much controversy, so much uncertainty, so much dis-ingenuous play supported by so many democrats?
We all know there are the same types of good solid Americans in either party or race or religion who do in fact understand right from wrong and are law abiding citizens and good neighbors.
The only conclusion one can reach is they remain silent onthe subject, hence all we hear are the fanatic party loyals would back whoever the party puts in front of them.

Maybe the silents will express there displeasure in the voting booth in the event she becomes the candidate. I just do not understand why the following when there most certainly are better people in the party for the job.
  #449  
Old 07-09-2015, 07:21 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The democrats have nobody on the bench. They are all in with Clinton despite her past. The left-wing mind set is one of denial. This is what we have come to as a nation - unqualified and corrupt candidates and uninformed/uncaring voters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
This is obviously a thread of interest with over 10,000 hits.
Even though it is probably only ten of us or so with repeated hits to see the latest yarn being spun on this corrupt "lady".

Why is a person with so much controversy, so much uncertainty, so much dis-ingenuous play supported by so many democrats?
We all know there are the same types of good solid Americans in either party or race or religion who do in fact understand right from wrong and are law abiding citizens and good neighbors.
The only conclusion one can reach is they remain silent onthe subject, hence all we hear are the fanatic party loyals would back whoever the party puts in front of them.

Maybe the silents will express there displeasure in the voting booth in the event she becomes the candidate. I just do not understand why the following when there most certainly are better people in the party for the job.
  #450  
Old 07-09-2015, 09:02 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
The democrats have nobody on the bench. They are all in with Clinton despite her past. The left-wing mind set is one of denial. This is what we have come to as a nation - unqualified and corrupt candidates and uninformed/uncaring voters.
I agree. Do you and others have an opinion about why this is happening....being allowed to happen?

Is the answer locked up in the 50% or more who choose not to register/vote?

I subscribe to the old saying that all people are basically good and left to their own devices will do what is right.

I do believe most people, regardless of party, race religion would want the very best person for any job, especially one that is supposed to be for the people.

Why do we only hear from the party radicals that will do what ever it takes to promote whoever is on the ticket? Sort of like the "good Muslims" we never hear from. Why is that.

What is the event or events that will finally stir this nation to take it back to it's former stature....as a nation and as a people?
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 AM.