I'm a life-long democrat. That doesn't mean I blindly accept everything liberal politicans say and do, but, Hillary Clinton is much more than a politician. She's a lawyer and one savvy experienced tough woman.
The following is from today's Washington Post:
Revelations may cloud Clinton's tenure at State
Will Clinton's experience be a liability?
Why Clinton's private e-mail address is bad news(1:21)
Hillary Clinton's private e-mail address that she used while secretary of state reinforces everything people don't like about her, argues The Post's Chris Cillizza, and is very dangerous to her presidential ambitions. (The Washington Post)
By Anne Gearan March 8 at 12:45 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state was supposed to be a central argument for her forthcoming run for president. Her globe-trotting record as the nation's chief diplomat, her role championing women's empowerment and gay rights, and her experience on tough national security issues were all supposed to confer credentials that none of her possible GOP opponents would possess.
But over the past two weeks, with back-to-back revelations that she was working with foreign countries that gave millions of dollars to her family's charitable foundation and that she set up and exclusively used a private e-mail system, that argument has been put in peril.
Instead of a fresh chapter in which Clinton came into her own, her time as the country's top diplomat now threatens to remind voters of what some people dislike about her — a tendency toward secrecy and defensiveness, along with the whiff of scandal that clouded the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton.
That side of Hillary Clinton also plays directly into the main Republican argument against her, that she is a candidate of "yesterday" — as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida recently put it — who comes with decades of baggage the country no longer need carry.
"Part of the reason the story is gaining traction is that it reminds people of what the Clinton White House was like," said American University political science professor Jennifer Lawless. "It reminds people of the scandals, the secrecy and the lack of transparency that were often associated with Bill Clinton's eight years in Washington."
Clinton was already certain to face sharp questions during a presidential campaign about her handling of the deadly attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. She has never been shown to have any direct role in events leading up to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but an inquiry that Democrats call a fishing expedition has been given new life by the revelation that her e-mails were not immediately given to Congress.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chairs a special congressional committee on Benghazi, has subpoenaed Clinton's e-mails and plans to call her as a witness once his investigation is further along. That will mean a showdown in the middle of a presidential campaign in which she will be trying to reintroduce herself to voters.
"You do not need a law degree to have an understanding of how troubling this is," Gowdy said in a news conference last week.
Clinton has said nothing about the e-mail controversy beyond a tweet promising to seek to make the messages public. On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Clinton needs to talk in more detail about the issue. "From this point on, the silence is going to hurt her," Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Clinton's problems at the State Department also make it easier for Republicans to connect her to what they see as President Obama's shaky foreign policy and his broken promise to operate the most transparent administration in history.
Even the smallest things are being looked at anew. The iconic image of her at the State Department, which she chose as her Twitter avatar, shows her seated aboard a military transport plane, reading something — perhaps e-mail — on her BlackBerry.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who is weighing a 2016 bid, cast her reliance on private e-mail as a serious security risk. "It's a little baffling, to be honest with you, that didn't come up in Secretary Clinton's thought process," the Republican said in a Friday radio interview.
And while Clinton remains the overwhelming favorite for her party's nomination, some Democrats last week were more open about their misgivings about her candidacy. On Friday night in New Hampshire, former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley, who might run against her, for the first time broke his silence on her use of the private e-mail account, saying that "openness and transparency are required of governing in the modern age."
Protected from politics
For Clinton, the State Department years were a kind of protective cocoon from partisan politics, even though she was a visible member of a Democratic administration that was doing regular battle with congressional Republicans.
She was rarely called upon to take public positions on partisan issues. Her history as a politically active first lady, senator and failed Democratic candidate for president were rarely mentioned in day-to-day news coverage of her trips and priorities as secretary.
Clinton's busy pace — she visited a record 112 countries — made it easy to deflect questions about the common assumption that she would make another run for the White House when her time at the State Department was over.
After leaving office, she wrote a memoir of her time at the State Department that was published last year. The book, "Hard Choices," marked her unmistakable entry into the 2016 presidential race and amounted to a virtual campaign manifesto.
"We have to use all of America's strengths to build a world with more partners and fewer adversaries, more shared responsibility and fewer conflicts, more good jobs and less poverty, more broadly based prosperity with less damage to our environment," Clinton wrote.
Clinton posted a Twitter message Wednesday night — two days into the e-mail controversy — saying she wants the public "to see my e-mails." She said she has asked the State Department to review them for release. That review could also establish whether she broke any rules about the handling of sensitive information.
The e-mail arrangement meant that Clinton's work e-mails were being routed through a private server in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home and were not being archived by the government as now required. She handed over 55,000 pages of e-mails upon the State Department's request last year, more than a year after she left her post.
She has not explained the reason for the unorthodox arrangement, and her husband declined to weigh in on Sunday. "I'm not the one to judge that. I have an opinion, but I have a bias," Bill Clinton said in response to a reporter's question during a Florida appearance, according to Bloomberg Politics. He added: "I shouldn't be making news on this."
The White House has distanced itself from the growing controversy. Obama said in an interview with CBS on Saturday that he did not know about Hillary Clinton's use of private e-mail until reading news reports last week.
"The president does have the expectation that everybody in his administration takes the steps that are necessary to be in compliance with the Federal Records Act and with the Presidential Records Act," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Friday. "And again, that means using, as often as possible, using your official government e-mail when you're conducting official government business."
White House officials communicated with Clinton on her private account, and it is not clear that any White House official flagged the practice as a potential problem.
The e-mail revelation came after the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation acknowledged in February that it had accepted a foreign-government donation in 2010 without submitting it for an ethics review, as required in a 2008 agreement with the Obama administration.
The 2008 agreement had been reached to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation was to submit any donation from a foreign government that had not previously given money to the foundation.
The goal was to allow ethics officers to analyze whether it might appear that the government was trying to influence U.S. policy with a donation to a charity so closely linked to the nation's top diplomat.
The foundation told The Washington Post that it had failed to follow that process in the case of an unsolicited $500,000 donation from the government of Algeria to assist in earthquake relief in Haiti. The donation coincided with a spike in lobbying by Algeria, which was defending its human rights record to U.S. officials.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the donation did not pose a problem because U.S. support for rebuilding efforts in Haiti was well known before the Algerian donation came in.
Democrats react
Prominent Clinton backers have dismissed the recent controversies as minor distractions unimportant to voters and blamed the e-mail flap on a Republican attack machine. But other Democrats expressed exasperation at what they called a slow and ham-handed response to the e-mail controversy by her small group of advisers. There is no in-house, campaign-grade rapid-response operation, and outside defenders had little notice that a problem was brewing.
"I'd be surprised to find a lot of Democrats who think this is going to have a lot of legs," said one senior Democratic strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Clinton is not yet a candidate. "But there is a level of angst and annoyance about how badly the thing has been mishandled."
Several Democrats said the controversy is being blown out of proportion and questioned whether Republicans are being subjected to the same level of scrutiny.
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) said that Clinton has been aboveboard and that the controversy will quickly fade.
"She's not trying to hide anything," Sanchez said.
Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington Post.
www.washingtonpost.com
As the saying goes........."Follow the money (http://www.nationaljournal.com/twenty-sixteen/emails-may-be-a-key-to-addressing-pay-to-play-whispers-at-clinton-foundation-20150308)"....
Lets wait and see how this plays out.
. . .and that she set up and exclusively used a private e-mail system,. . .
She did not set it up. The United States Government set it up for the President of the United States, (her husband), when he was in office. And there were no security breaches. . .
. . .the main Republican argument against her, that she is a candidate of "yesterday" — as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida recently put it . . .
As if Bush isn't twice the candidate of yesterday? :roll eyes: The GOP has a terminal case of Hypocrisy with a secondary and contributing condition called, "the no's". :yes:
. . .Clinton was already certain to face sharp questions during a presidential campaign about her handling of the deadly attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. She has never been shown to have any direct role in events leading up to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but an inquiry that Democrats call a fishing expedition has been given new life by the revelation that her e-mails were not immediately given to Congress. . .
Oh boy, here we go again. Dig up that pulped and pureed dead horse and it's pal the Red Herring. More flotsam with which to scare the sheeple! :roll eyes:
. . .Clinton has said nothing about the e-mail controversy beyond a tweet promising to seek to make the messages public. . .
More supposition and conjecture; which Ms Clinton nicely put to rest with this afternoon's statement. And she again, publicly, and in person, made the request to have the e-mails made public. :razz:
. . .make it easier for Republicans to connect her to what they see as President Obama's shaky foreign policy and his broken promise to operate the most transparent administration in history. . .
Oh goody. Let's play connect the imaginary dots! Another dirty tricks tactic designed to scare the masses. Fact is this POTUS has been forced to undertake covert approaches toward his work by a hostile Congressional pack of wolves and liars. A little over 6 years of this crap to this point, with no end in sight. These jackwagons are desperate because they don't want to see another 4 years of democratic residency in the White House; making it 12 years in a row. Along the way they are ruining this country and the quality of life of its citizens! :rant:
. . .Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who is weighing a 2016 bid, cast her reliance on private e-mail as a serious security risk. "It's a little baffling, to be honest with you, that didn't come up in Secretary Clinton's thought process," the Republican said in a Friday radio interview. . .
Really? What about daddy and brothers use of the same? You really need to listen to mommy Jeb; "This country has had enough Bushes in the White House!"
. . ."I'd be surprised to find a lot of Democrats who think this is going to have a lot of legs," said one senior Democratic strategist . . .
Think about it pal. We're talking the GOP, home of the new Closet Nazi Regime and ministry of propaganda. The champions of dirty tricks and mudslinging. They'll beat this dead horse until it comes back to life via evolution! :roll eyes:
I cannot wait until they start opening up the closets of that gaggle of republican geese trying to obtain the tea-billy party nomination as candidate for President. There are going to be so many skeletons mucking about that it will make SH's mass graves look like a paper cut!
To Ole' Duke Hillary is just a politician, no more, no less.
Best regards,
Duke (speakin' out of both ends at the same time) Jupiter
Quote from: Palehorse on March 10, 2015, 07:34:08 PM
. . .and that she set up and exclusively used a private e-mail system,. . .
She did not set it up. The United States Government set it up for the President of the United States, (her husband), when he was in office. And there were no security breaches. . .
. . .the main Republican argument against her, that she is a candidate of "yesterday" — as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida recently put it . . .
As if Bush isn't twice the candidate of yesterday? :roll eyes: The GOP has a terminal case of Hypocrisy with a secondary and contributing condition called, "the no's". :yes:
. . .Clinton was already certain to face sharp questions during a presidential campaign about her handling of the deadly attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. She has never been shown to have any direct role in events leading up to the deaths of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but an inquiry that Democrats call a fishing expedition has been given new life by the revelation that her e-mails were not immediately given to Congress. . .
Oh boy, here we go again. Dig up that pulped and pureed dead horse and it's pal the Red Herring. More flotsam with which to scare the sheeple! :roll eyes:
. . .Clinton has said nothing about the e-mail controversy beyond a tweet promising to seek to make the messages public. . .
More supposition and conjecture; which Ms Clinton nicely put to rest with this afternoon's statement. And she again, publicly, and in person, made the request to have the e-mails made public. :razz:
. . .make it easier for Republicans to connect her to what they see as President Obama's shaky foreign policy and his broken promise to operate the most transparent administration in history. . .
Oh goody. Let's play connect the imaginary dots! Another dirty tricks tactic designed to scare the masses. Fact is this POTUS has been forced to undertake covert approaches toward his work by a hostile Congressional pack of wolves and liars. A little over 6 years of this crap to this point, with no end in sight. These jackwagons are desperate because they don't want to see another 4 years of democratic residency in the White House; making it 12 years in a row. Along the way they are ruining this country and the quality of life of its citizens! :rant:
. . .Former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who is weighing a 2016 bid, cast her reliance on private e-mail as a serious security risk. "It's a little baffling, to be honest with you, that didn't come up in Secretary Clinton's thought process," the Republican said in a Friday radio interview. . .
Really? What about daddy and brothers use of the same? You really need to listen to mommy Jeb; "This country has had enough Bushes in the White House!"
. . ."I'd be surprised to find a lot of Democrats who think this is going to have a lot of legs," said one senior Democratic strategist . . .
Think about it pal. We're talking the GOP, home of the new Closet Nazi Regime and ministry of propaganda. The champions of dirty tricks and mudslinging. They'll beat this dead horse until it comes back to life via evolution! :roll eyes:
I cannot wait until they start opening up the closets of that gaggle of republican geese trying to obtain the tea-billy party nomination as candidate for President. There are going to be so many skeletons mucking about that it will make SH's mass graves look like a paper cut!
If memory serves me correctly the only place you could email from when he was in office was a pc and the net wasn't that busy so why did he need a private server?
Hillary is now saying that she used her private email account for "convenience."
"Looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two separate e-mail accounts," Clinton said at a news conference following a speech at a U.N. conference on women's economic status. "I thought using one (mobile) device would be simpler. Obviously, it hasn't worked out that way."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department/24668715/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/10/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department/24668715/)
I don't know but I'm just sayin' ...
I have at least four separate email accounts that I check from just one phone.
Hmmm?
(https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10391420_662034267256335_5992507778576825930_n.jpg?oh=61468cfb8e487a89a81a96829b17316f&oe=557BF303)
;D
^^ That's for you HH.
It IS pretty funny!!
The fact is, she is so full of shit, she thinks she can lie like her hubby and get away with it...
ie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"....
But, NOTHING would surprise me, there are enough morons who would STILL vote for her as our next POTUS... :yes:
I don't know where to start. But will try. People working at her level, whether at State or elsewhere, leave it up to their security and protocol and other lesser "worker bee" people to keep them out of trouble. Where national security is concerned, they don't have a choice. They don't make the rules.
So she used her personal phone and computer. In such a highly visible position, the best advice is "trust no one." With all that was going on, it's a wonder she had time to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom. Her hair alone should be evidence enough of the pressure she was under.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2015, 02:01:54 PM
. . .
The fact is, she is so full of shit, she thinks she can lie like her hubby and get away with it...
. . .
:rolleyes:
That's right, slay the wife over the sins of the husband. . . :roll eyes:
Fact is there isn't a better candidate among the herd of GOP tea-Billies clamoring about to obtain the party nomination. :no:
And the election process ALWAYS comes down to the lesser of two or more evils. . . ALWAYS!
I almost believe Biden could run against any one of them and win! :icon_twisted:
Quote from: me on March 11, 2015, 01:33:40 AM
If memory serves me correctly the only place you could email from when he was in office was a pc and the net wasn't that busy so why did he need a private server?
I'd ask for a refund on that memory device. Blackberry debuted in 1996 as a pager/e-mail device, and morphed to the phone version rapidly. Palm Computing debuted the first version of what rapidly became the "Pilot" that same year.
That aside, I am sure that once Bill Clinton left the office in 2000, his home network, (Not the one at the WH), was set up and validated by the WH Security detail(S) assigned to him. (The danger doesn't end once you leave that place / office).
Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2015, 06:11:32 PM
:rolleyes:
That's right, slay the wife over the sins of the husband. . . :roll eyes:
Fact is there isn't a better candidate among the herd of GOP tea-Billies clamoring about to obtain the party nomination. :no:
And the election process ALWAYS comes down to the lesser of two or more evils. . . ALWAYS!
I almost believe Biden could run against any one of them and win! :icon_twisted:
We will soon see won't we.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2015, 06:58:48 PM
We will soon see won't we.
Getting ready to sing that same song as last time? ;D
Quote from: Locutus on March 11, 2015, 07:06:53 PM
Getting ready to sing that same song as last time? ;D
And what song would that be? :angel:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2015, 07:14:20 PM
And what song would that be? :angel:
He was saying "We'll see," right up and until the light shined on him. ;D
Pretty soon the Rasmussen polls will be trotted out. :yes:
(http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/images/richardhilhausnixon2/1358465-1-eng-GB/RichardHilhausNixon.jpg)
Quote from: Palehorse on March 11, 2015, 06:48:45 PM
I'd ask for a refund on that memory device.
Her memory device has always been a bit buggy.
Quote from: Locutus on March 11, 2015, 07:06:53 PM
Getting ready to sing that same song as last time? ;D
And eat the same meal! :biggrin:
(https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/eating-crow.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on March 12, 2015, 09:02:45 AM
And eat the same meal! :biggrin:
(https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/eating-crow.jpg)
:yes: :big grin:
The following is from an article by E. J. Dionne in today's Washington Post. Libby
Open letters are the next new thing, so let's imagine Hillary Clinton sending a simple note to all voters:
Dear fellow American,
I want to offer you what has always been the Clinton deal. You get peace and prosperity. I put up with endless scrutiny, countless attacks and bottomless mistrust. It's a good deal for you, and I can handle the rest.
:sneaky: If you' like to read the rest of what Dionne wrote, here it is:
"The controversy over Clinton's e-mails as secretary of state is an early skirmish in what will be one of the defining battles of her quest for the White House. Her success will depend in significant part on which aspects the 1990s voters choose to remember.
Clinton's foes want Americans to recall the investigations, the political circus and fascinating philosophical discussions over what the meaning of "is" is. Her supporters want every voter who casts a ballot to think about a period when the going was good, when every income group saw its standard of living rise and when the world beyond our borders looked much safer and more stable.
Clinton: It 'would have been better' to use State e-mails(1:07)
Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton acknowledged Tuesday that she had erred in using only a private e-mail server for work correspondence at the State Department. (AP)
Round One, the e-mails saga, goes to Clinton's opponents. Key Democrats outside her circle, realizing how badly this was playing for her, went public to push her hard to come forward, try to end the round and move on. Many Democrats were thus happy to accept her explanation Tuesday that she used a private server out of "convenience." They were willing to trust that the e-mails she deleted really were about weddings, funerals and yoga.
They know their party has no real alternative to Clinton. They also share her dim view of a Republican Party willing to pick up any rock to throw the Clintons' way and remember a GOP that had been happy to push the country to an impeachment drama most voters plainly didn't want.
It was thus shrewd of her to lead Tuesday's news conference by assailing the 47 Republican senators who wrote an open letter to Iran's leadership by way of undermining President Obama's nuclear negotiations. Pointing to this outlandish move reminded Democrats (and the country as a whole) that she is still dealing with an opposition that scorns the traditional rules and norms of statesmanship and politics. She also gently nudged Obama to remember which side he needs to be on.
Rallying Democrats will likely get Clinton through this storm, even if her responses will not satisfy those who will always wonder which e-mails she deleted and whether her use of a private server was not only about convenience but also a way of shielding her electronic correspondence from Freedom of Information Act and congressional requests.
But those who say the episode is about Clinton's alleged sense of entitlement have it wrong. This actually speaks to her hard-earned paranoia about what her opponents — and the media, which in her view so often play ball with them — are willing to do to destroy her. Her mistrust may be understandable in light of the past, but it is profoundly counterproductive.
It would be naive to suggest that being more open with the media always works in favor of the transparent politician. Clinton can highlight the fact that her much-praised answer-every-question news conference on Whitewater in 1994 failed to shut down the story. She also turned out to be right that no good would come the Clintons' way from naming a special prosecutor to investigate the matter.
On the other hand, she was wrong to resist the earlier advice of then-adviser David Gergen that she and Bill Clinton dump all of the Whitewater documents and let the journalists judge. Gergen has argued that, had this happened, "there would have been no Ken Starr, no special prosecutor, no Monica, and history would have been very different."
Although alternative histories can never be confirmed, Clinton needs to ponder this lesson. To survive the next 20 months until Election Day, she will have to find her way toward a less viscerally antagonistic view of media scrutiny that distinguishes between partisan muggings and the sorts of questions all presidential candidates inevitably confront.
It may be true that recent days showed she has enemies and harsh critics not only among Republicans but also in mainstream media circles. But focusing solely on them will only encourage her to delay responding to legitimate inquiries and to write off advisers who counsel her toward a less-hostile approach to scrutiny.
Paradoxically, the e-mail saga could be highly useful to Clinton's campaign and her potential presidency — if she draws the right conclusions."
~
Read more from E.J. Dionne's archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
E.J. Dionne writes about politics in a twice-weekly column and on the PostPartisan blog. He is also a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, a government professor at Georgetown University and a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio, ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press." View Archive
Facebook
RSS
Quote from: Bo D on March 11, 2015, 12:09:23 PM
...I have at least four separate email accounts that I check from just one phone...
All from the same provider?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on March 11, 2015, 02:01:54 PM
The fact is, she is so full of shit, she thinks she can lie like her hubby and get away with it...
ie, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"....
Gawd! I can't believe you still think that response was a 'lie'. Ole' Bill answered specifically like the attorney he was. The term 'sexual relations' was defined as, and referred specifically to, coitus - coital relations, the penis inserted into the vagina.
Just because so many of you dips don't know the language and don't bother to learn or research it doesn't mean a statement was a 'lie'.
I, personally, would simply have liked to see HRC give the Repugs and the media a big FU and KMA over this BS made up non-controversy.
Quote from: Y on March 23, 2015, 05:28:15 PM
Gawd! I can't believe you still think that response was a 'lie'. Ole' Bill answered specifically like the attorney he was. The term 'sexual relations' was defined as, and referred specifically to, coitus - coital relations, the penis inserted into the vagina.
Just because so many of you dips don't know the language and don't bother to learn or research it doesn't mean a statement was a 'lie'.
Guess he should have improved his aim huh? What is boils down to is wrong is wrong and getting by because they didn't ask the question a different way is just another crafty move on his part.
Quote from: me on March 24, 2015, 05:06:57 PM
Guess he should have improved his aim huh? What is boils down to is wrong is wrong and getting by because they didn't ask the question a different way is just another crafty move on his part.
Careful. . . your biblicism is showing!
He was a lawyer, for goodness sake! What did anyone expect of him? He spent years in training to look at, and respond, to things in that manner.
I think people and the media were just mad because he knew how to respond in a specific manner.
Seriously though, it wasn't anyone's business but his, Hillary's, and Monica's. He wasn't being blackmailed or giving up state secrets. The RW simply hated him and it was something over which to make a media circus.
Quote from: Y on March 24, 2015, 05:32:14 PM
He was a lawyer, for goodness sake! What did anyone expect of him? He spent years in training to look at, and respond, to things in that manner.
I think people and the media were just mad because he knew how to respond in a specific manner.
Seriously though, it wasn't anyone's business but his, Hillary's, and Monica's. He wasn't being blackmailed or giving up state secrets. The RW simply hated him and it was something over which to make a media circus.
Had he been a conservative the same thing would have happened in reverse and you know it.
Oh really? Examples, please.
Quote from: Y on March 24, 2015, 06:16:53 PM
Oh really? Examples, please.
You know I'm right because that's the way politics work.
In a hypothetical Democratic primary:
Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley?
I am particularly interested in what Bo D has to say to that question. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on April 11, 2015, 04:42:00 PM
In a hypothetical Democratic primary:
Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley?
I am particularly interested in what Bo D has to say to that question. ;D
I'm having a hard time embracing Hillary. I can't exactly say why - I just have a feeling.
Martin O'Malley presents some problems also. I really like the guy but he is practically unknown outside of Maryland. I will say that IMHO Maryland is a much better state now because of his governorship. You all know by now what a high priority I place on education and under O'Malley Maryland schools ranked the best in the country.
But we do have to pay for quality and some will accuse O'Malley of overtaxing.
You get what you pay for.
Besides, I liked his band - O'Malley's March.
That's for providing your take. I was particularly interested in what someone from Maryland would say about him.
Quote from: Locutus on April 11, 2015, 04:42:00 PM
In a hypothetical Democratic primary:
Hillary Clinton or Martin O'Malley?
For the LOVE of God....PLEASE NO HILLARY.....We promise NOT to run a Bush, if you promise not to run a Clinton. (Actually, in hindsight, Bill wasn't the worst)....
O'Malley seems interesting....How liberal is he? I don't know much about him....he seems pretty sharp on what little I see of him.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on April 16, 2015, 03:18:18 PM
O'Malley seems interesting....How liberal is he? I don't know much about him....he seems pretty sharp on what little I see of him.
I think he is a moderate. Another reason to like him!
Quote from: Bo D on April 16, 2015, 01:51:51 PM
I'm having a hard time embracing Hillary. I can't exactly say why - I just have a feeling.
Martin O'Malley presents some problems also. I really like the guy but he is practically unknown outside of Maryland. I will say that IMHO Maryland is a much better state now because of his governorship. You all know by now what a high priority I place on education and under O'Malley Maryland schools ranked the best in the country.
But we do have to pay for quality and some will accuse O'Malley of overtaxing.
You get what you pay for.
Besides, I liked his band - O'Malley's March.
Well, I'm going to vote for Hillary, she the best Democrat we got. And of all the Republican goons they got running, there is not one brain among them. I say fill the clown bus and run it of a cliff. I think American needs a woman to run the damn place. The men we have had sure have done a poor job. Go, go Hillary. :smitten: :biggrin:
Ole Duke ain't got no dadburn problem with a woman for prez, I just wish Danica Patrick would run ;D :smitten:
Best regards,
Duke (no Clintons no Bushies) Jupiter
;D
Danica would get my vote too. :yes: :drool1:
Quote from: The Troll on April 19, 2015, 02:43:59 PM
Well, I'm going to vote for Hillary, she the best Democrat we got. And of all the Republican goons they got running, there is not one brain among them. I say fill the clown bus and run it of a cliff. I think American needs a woman to run the damn place. The men we have had sure have done a poor job. Go, go Hillary. :smitten: :biggrin:
:yes:
:yes:
:big grin:
And while Hillary has really not received any serious competition, Bernie Sanders entering the race should make certain she won't get dragged too far Right or forget the disenfranchised for corporate interests.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-president-announcement-liberal-alternative-2016-democratic-primary/
Let's be real right out of the gate: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is almost certainly not going to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Hillary Clinton is the most dominant non-incumbent front-runner in modern primary history. It would take a truly special candidate to defeat her, and Sanders, who officially announced he's running Thursday, is not the politician for the job.
Still, he is the type of candidate who can ensure that liberal interests are well-represented in the Democratic primary — and potentially in Clinton's campaign platform.
This is not a quote of what somebody else said; it's from my memory of an emotional moment:
I watch Morning Joe whenever I can. Having said that I can only take so much of Joe, but when they have guests -- people in the news -- it gets very interesting (a little like the tone here on the Zone sometimes).
Yesterday was just Joe and Mika and a couple of guests I didn't recognize. I looked up from my newspaper when Mika mentioned a clip of Hillary Clinton talking to a crowd and proceeded to show it: Somebody said a little boy had a question for Mrs. Clinton, and she turned to him with the expression we all have for cute little children. After some ohs and ahs from the crowd, she asked him for his question, and he asked her what the most important things are. I'm sure he was prompted, but not by her people; she seemed to be caught off guard. Then, after a brief hesitation, she said: "Love."
The crowd cheered. That's where it stopped in the TV repeats. But, this time, on Morning Joe, they showed the rest of what the seemingly unflappable Hillary Clinton said -- quietly, slowly, haltingly:
"I have loved and been loved, and all the rest is background music."
As far as I'm concerned, any woman who has gone through what she has, and can still maintain her composure, think on her feet like that, should be our next president.
The more questions that Hillary won't answer is making me lose interest in her. :yes: I am beginning to really like Bernie. :salute:
Quote from: The Troll on July 29, 2015, 08:28:40 PM
The more questions that Hillary won't answer is making me lose interest in her. :yes: I am beginning to really like Bernie. :salute:
Face it. He doesn't have a chance. Hillary Clinton needs supporters with clear heads who have the sense to understand you can't run a country by acceding to the demands of every :lipsrsealed2: person who insists she produce every piece of paper that has gone through her hands and/or answer idiotic questions posed by people who wouldn't have a clue what they were hearing or looking at if she had the time or patience to address everything from everybody.
Quote from: libby on July 29, 2015, 09:52:38 PM
Face it. He doesn't have a chance. Hillary Clinton needs supporters with clear heads who have the sense to understand you can't run a country by acceding to the demands of every :lipsrsealed2: person who demands she produce every piece of paper that has gone through her hands and/or answer idiotic questions posed by people who wouldn't have a clue what they were hearing or looking at if she had the time or patience to address everything from everybody.
:yes:
Case in point being how long Obama gave the :finger01: to all of the people who were asking to see his birth certificate.
Quote from: Locutus on July 29, 2015, 09:57:15 PM
:yes:
Case in point being how long Obama gave the :finger01: to all of the people who were asking to see his birth certificate.
Good point. :smile:
Quote from: libby on July 29, 2015, 10:12:56 PM
Good point. :smile:
Hillary needs to answer what she feels about TPP and the Canadian pipe line going through our country. :yes: Also what she feels about the big banks and Wall Street. :huh1: :yes:
Here's a reasonable update of what is going on with Hillary Clinton. She is showing remarkable self-restraint. She was the Secretary of State and before that the wife of POTUS Bill Clinton, and is a lawyer. She knows how to handle the press.
It is :rolleyes: that she is being hounded because of the possibility that she might've had some classified material at home (she had to/ has to eat and sleep and go the bathroom and shower and try to do something with her hair, for Pete's sake).
Hillary Clinton won't say if her server was wiped
By John Wagner and Rosalind S. Helderman, August 18, 2015
Clinton to media: Nobody talks to me about e-mails besides you.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded to reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday over the controversy surrounding her personal e-mail server. Clinton reiterated that she did not send or receive any classified material from her personal account. (AP)
This story has been updated.
NORTH LAS VEGAS -- Democratic president candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said repeatedly Tuesday that she did not know if her e-mail server, which was turned over to the FBI last week, had been wiped clean of data.
In a testy exchange with reporters following a town hall meeting in North Las Vegas, Clinton responded, "What, like with a cloth or something?" when asked if the server had been wiped. "I don't know how it works at all," she added.
After Ed Henry of Fox News pressed Clinton on the issue repeatedly, an aide ended the question-and-answer session and Clinton turned to walk away. Another reporter shouted a question about whether the e-mail issue will ever go away. Clinton turned and shrugged.
"Nobody talks to me about it other than you guys," she said.
The exchange typified Clinton's struggle to fully answer questions about her use of a private e-mail account and server during her four years as secretary of state, and to move beyond those questions to focus on other campaign issues.
Takeaways from Hillary Clinton's private e-mails
View Photos
Clinton has come under fire for using a private e-mail during her time as secretary of state. The e-mails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we've learned from them.
The private e-mail server that Clinton used while secretary of state was turned over to the FBI last week from a data center in New Jersey, where it had been stored since 2013 by a small Denver IT firm the Clintons had hired that year to manage their technology needs.
Clinton directed that it be turned over after the FBI requested it as part of an inquiry into whether data that had been stored on the server was secure. Officials have said the probe is preliminary and Clinton is not a target.
[What you need to know about Hillary Clinton's e-mails]
The Intelligence Community's Inspector General has said he located two e-mails containing top secret material in a sample of 40 of Clinton's e-mails he reviewed. The State Department has said Clinton herself did not write those e-mails but that there are potentially hundreds of other e-mails that also included classified material.
"In order to be as cooperative as possible, we have turned over the server," Clinton told reporters Tuesday. "They can do whatever they want to with the server to figure out what's there and what's not there. That's for the people investigating it to try to figure out."
Clinton again insisted Tuesday that she did not send any classified material but also acknowledged that she wishes she had not used the private system.
"In retrospect, what was meant to be convenient has turned out to be anything but convenient," she said.
Clinton has said she turned over 30,000 work-related e-mails from her private account to the State Department in December. She said she chose not to keep 31,000 other e-mails from the account that were sent and received during those years because they dealt only with personal matters.
"Look, my personal e-mails are my personal business. Right?" she told reporters, when asked if the e-mails were wiped from the server. "So we went through a painstaking process and through 55,000 pages we thought could be worth relating. Under the law, that decision is made by the official. I was the official. I made those decisions."
www.washingtonpost.com
John Wagner has covered Maryland government and politics for The Post since 2004.
Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post.
Where was the outcry from the neocons when Bush and his administration violated the Presidential Records Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy) by using a private domain hosted by the RNC? As many as 22 million missing emails...
The emails of Hillary is just a Red Herring. Behind it all is Turd Blossom and the Republican Dirty Tricks Team. Nothing but pure bullshit. :puke:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on August 20, 2015, 08:23:01 AM
Where was the outcry from the neocons when Bush and his administration violated the Presidential Records Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy) by using a private domain hosted by the RNC? As many as 22 million missing emails...
Quote from: The Troll on August 20, 2015, 10:43:04 AM
The emails of Hillary is just a Red Herring. Behind it all is Turd Blossom and the Republican Dirty Tricks Team. Nothing but pure bullshit. :puke:
It's simply more ReThug political tactics.
I think it's obvious they don't care about governing, they care about political power.
Quote from: Y on September 10, 2015, 05:07:30 PM
It's simply more ReThug political tactics.
I think it's obvious they don't care about governing, they care about political power.
And they don't give a rats behind about who they use to get it; hence the blossoming of religiosity within them and their "platform"; one they will immediately forget once it imposes itself upon their personal wealth and power. :yes:
:puke: :puke:
LMAO!
Truth, facts, evidence, and logic always did make you sick. :razz:
:biggrin:
If you guys were talking about politicians in general, I would agree........but when you act as if the republicans is worse than democrats, it makes me ill.
I'm not even saying that most republicans are better than most democrats........they BOTH suck.
They BOTH have bullsh!t they push in their platforms that is NOT best for America.
I just happen to think, that those with a more conservative approach will do more for ALL Americans than what is PROVEN to be destructive to many Americasn by the progressive approach.
Other than that, nearly ALL of those bums are crooks with no intention but to collect a pay check at the expense of voters.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 08:03:44 AM
I just happen to think, that those with a more conservative approach will do more for ALL Americans than what is PROVEN to be destructive to many Americasn by the progressive approach.
Like what? Please provide specific examples and feel free to point out what the last conservative administration did for the American people.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 16, 2015, 08:16:20 AM
Like what? Please provide specific examples and feel free to point out what the last conservative administration did for the American people.
Keeping taxes as low as possible on all Americans
Enforcing immigration laws
Securing our boarder
I think it is BAD when working Americans pay higher taxes....a liberal thing
Allowing immigrants to merely walk across the boarder is a bad thing....and a liberal thing
Focusing on entitlement programs more than increasing jobs is not a good thing.... and a liberal thing
just naming a few
I am falling into another trap...I know this isn't going to do anything positive.....and we are not going to change our minds ..... so this is pointless.
Keeping Government out as much as possible
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 09:51:28 AM
I think it is BAD when working Americans pay higher taxes....a liberal thing
Taxes on middle income Americans are lower now than they were during the previous administration so that is a lie.
QuoteAllowing immigrants to merely walk across the boarder is a bad thing....and a liberal thing
Again, please be specific about what the previous administration did about this issue. They did nothing and deported fewer illegals than the current administration so this is also a lie.
QuoteFocusing on entitlement programs more than increasing jobs is not a good thing.... and a liberal thing
The current administration has added more jobs than any of the 3 previous conservative administration so this is...you guessed it...another lie.
You're 0 for 3; care to spin again. Conservatives like to pay lip service to these issues but do nothing beyond that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 09:51:28 AM
Securing our boarder
Allowing immigrants to merely walk across the boarder is a bad thing
Well ... I keep my boarder secure. I have him tied up in the room he rents from me. And I certainly don't allow anyone to step over him.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 16, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
Taxes on middle income Americans are lower now than they were during the previous administration so that is a lie.
Bush tax cuts.
Again, please be specific about what the previous administration did about this issue. They did nothing and deported fewer illegals than the current administration so this is also a lie.
The previous administration allowed them to be sent back and didn't fly or bus them here themselves. They also didn't allow sanctuary cities.
The current administration has added more jobs than any of the 3 previous conservative administration so this is...you guessed it...another lie.
You're 0 for 3; care to spin again. Conservatives like to pay lip service to these issues but do nothing beyond that.
Part time or temporary jobs.
The current administration has more people on welfare than the previous administration.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 16, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
Taxes on middle income Americans are lower now than they were during the previous administration so that is a lie.
Again, please be specific about what the previous administration did about this issue. They did nothing and deported fewer illegals than the current administration so this is also a lie.
Thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts.....and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which is just and extension of that bill.....so, NO, it is NOT a lie. It all started because of the Bush Administration....
Quote from: Exterminator on September 16, 2015, 10:39:53 AM
The current administration has added more jobs than any of the 3 previous conservative administration so this is...you guessed it...another lie.
Nope, it think the lie tends to be leaning towards Obama and HIS administration
The FACT is that millions of Americans have dropped out of the labor force and have given up looking for work, and our labor force participation rate is down to just 62.7%. The lowest rate we've seen in 36 years. That is a record high over 92 million Americans that are not in the labor force...couple that in with wage earnings dropping....so spin it all you want. THIS IS NOT A LIE.
Quote from: Bo D on September 16, 2015, 10:42:58 AM
Well ... I keep my boarder secure. I have him tied up in the room he rents from me. And I certainly don't allow anyone to step over him.
Okay!!! THAT is funny......BORDER.
Funny how a simple letter being left out makes quite a bit difference in my argument, doesn't it.
Quote from: me on September 16, 2015, 10:56:56 AM
The current administration has more people on welfare than the previous administration.
Because the previous administration tanked the economy.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 16, 2015, 12:07:47 PM
Because the previous administration tanked the economy.
Along with a democrat controlled congress...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 11:49:54 AM
Nope, it think the lie tends to be leaning towards Obama and HIS administration
The FACT is that millions of Americans have dropped out of the labor force and have given up looking for work, and our labor force participation rate is down to just 62.7%. The lowest rate we've seen in 36 years. That is a record high over 92 million Americans that are not in the labor force...couple that in with wage earnings dropping....so spin it all you want. THIS IS NOT A LIE.
The fact, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, is that people have always dropped out of the labor force and employment figures have always been calculated the same way regardless of which party was in power. More jobs have been added during this administration than during any of the 3 previous conservative administrations...period.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 12:10:19 PM
Along with a democrat controlled congress...
Yeah, it didn't have anything to do with lowering taxes while increasing spending on unfunded medicare drug programs and wars and what not; huh? Put down the crack pipe. :rolleyes:
Telling Truth About Obama Unemployment Rate (http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/unemployment-rate-big-lie-barack-obama-gallup/2015/02/08/id/623489/)
The head of the Gallup polling firm recently backpedaled on his claim that the official unemployment rate being trumpeted by the White House, Wall Street and the media is a "big lie."
Jim Clifton, the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, recently told CNBC (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000352013)that he was worried he might "suddenly disappear" if he disputed the accuracy of what the U.S. government is reporting as unemployed Americans, Wall Street on Parade reported. (http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/02/gallup-ceo-fears-he-might-suddenly-disappear-for-questioning-u-s-jobs-data/)
"I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don't suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight."
But he contended that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population "is the worst it's been in 30 years."
His appearance on CNBC came days after he claimed the official unemployment rate being trumpeted by the White House, Wall Street and the media is a "big lie."
"None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job — if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed," the venerable firm's chief executive officer and chairman last week wrote in his blog. (http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx)
"Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast 'falling' unemployment."
Meanwhile, the Labor Department said on Friday said nonfarm payrolls increased 257,000 last month, Reuters reported. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/06/us-usa-economy-instant-idUSKBN0LA1HA20150206)Data for November and December were revised to show a whopping 147,000 more jobs created than previously reported, bolstering views consumers will have enough muscle to carry the economy through rough seas.
At 423,000, the government said November's payroll gains were the largest since May 2010, when employment was boosted by government hiring for the population count.
While the unemployment rate rose one-tenth of a percentage point to 5.7 percent, that was because the labor force increased, a sign of confidence in the jobs market.
January marked the 11th straight month of job gains above 200,000, the longest streak since 1994, the government said.
Obama has embraced and applauded the recent unemployment data.
"Our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999," Obama said in his State of the Union address Jan. 20. "Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis."
But Clifton writes Americans out of work for at least four weeks are "as unemployed as one can possibly be" and argues that as many as 30 million of them are now either out of work or severely underemployed.
In addition, those working part time but wanting full-time work — the so-called "severely underemployed" — also aren't counted in the latest low number.
"There's no other way to say this," he writes.
"The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie."
Clifton argues the United States "is delivering at a staggeringly low rate of 44 percent, which is the number of full-time jobs as a percent of the adult population, 18 years and older."
That number needs to "50 percent and a bare minimum of 10 million new, good jobs to replenish America's middle class," he writes.
"When the media, talking heads, the White House and Wall Street start reporting the truth — the percent of Americans in good jobs, jobs that are full time and real — then we will quit wondering why Americans aren't 'feeling' something that doesn't remotely reflect the reality in their lives," Clifton writes.
"And we will also quit wondering what hollowed out the middle class."
LMFAO! You aren't seriously expecting anyone to take you seriously when you use Newsmax as a source; are you?
Read this .... http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/unemployment-rate-gallup/ (http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/unemployment-rate-gallup/)
Quote from: Bo D on September 16, 2015, 01:01:00 PM
Read this .... http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/unemployment-rate-gallup/ (http://fortune.com/2015/02/04/unemployment-rate-gallup/)
Thanks Bo...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 01:13:57 PM
Thanks Bo...
You're welcome. But I don't think you would be thanking me if you really read it and understood it.
Basically, Fortune magazine is calling Jim Clifton an idiot.
But this pretty much sums up what HH is trying to say.
QuoteIs the economy as good as it was the last time the unemployment rate was 5.6%? No, but Americans know this. That's why the most recent State of the Union address was laser-focused on the issue of stagnant wages and the plight of the middle class.
"If you simply want to know what percentage of the population has a job versus those that don't, there is a statistic for that too. It's called the employment-to-population ratio. But that number tends to rise and fall for demographic and social reasons. It rose throughout the late 20th century, as women began to join the labor force in large numbers. And it is now trending downward, mostly because of the aging of the population."
"And by any measure, U6 or U3, the job market is better today than it was in 2009."
"The unemployment rate isn't a "Big Lie." It's simply one statistic among many that we use to judge the health of the economy."
Quote from: Bo D on September 16, 2015, 01:16:40 PM
You're welcome. But I don't think you would be thanking me if you really read it and understood it.
Basically, Fortune magazine is calling Jim Clifton an idiot.
I caught that part, but the article is STILL the same as NewsMax...with Clifton telling his opinion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
...but the article is STILL the same as NewsMax...
No, it isn't. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 01:49:45 PM
the article is STILL the same as NewsMax...
Your reading comprehension is severely deficient.
Quote from: Bo D on September 16, 2015, 03:48:42 PM
Your reading comprehension is severely deficient.
No....it isn't. But thanks for your input though.
Quote from: Bo D on September 16, 2015, 01:46:48 PM
"If you simply want to know what percentage of the population has a job versus those that don't, there is a statistic for that too. It's called the employment-to-population ratio. But that number tends to rise and fall for demographic and social reasons. It rose throughout the late 20th century, as women began to join the labor force in large numbers. And it is now trending downward, mostly because of the aging of the population."
"And by any measure, U6 or U3, the job market is better today than it was in 2009."
"The unemployment rate isn't a "Big Lie." It's simply one statistic among many that we use to judge the health of the economy."
If that is true then why is there a record number of people on welfare?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 16, 2015, 04:23:02 PM
No....it isn't. But thanks for your input though.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9c/b0/4e/9cb04ef5fda36361ea8aec31cca53a72.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 17, 2015, 08:55:25 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9c/b0/4e/9cb04ef5fda36361ea8aec31cca53a72.jpg)
Wow, did you steal that one from Don Rickles? That was funny 40 years ago..... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 17, 2015, 01:57:30 PM
Wow, did you steal that one from Don Rickles? That was funny 40 years ago..... :rolleyes:
Who said it was meant to be funny?
Quote from: Exterminator on September 17, 2015, 02:13:24 PM
Who said it was meant to be funny?
Well first of YOU meant for it to are you wouldn't have posted it.......you need new material if you are going to be in this business.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on September 17, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
Well first of YOU meant for it to are you wouldn't have posted it...
WTF? :confused:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 17, 2015, 03:08:15 PM
WTF? :confused:
Not sure WHAT the f is was trying to say there.... :confused:
but, I'm sure it was witty.... ;)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 17, 2015, 08:55:25 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9c/b0/4e/9cb04ef5fda36361ea8aec31cca53a72.jpg)
Being intelligent is a double-edged sword. :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on September 17, 2015, 02:13:24 PM
Who said it was meant to be funny?
I didn't take it as meaning to be funny at all.
Quote from: me on September 17, 2015, 01:02:08 AM
If that is true then why is there a record number of people on welfare?
That has been answered so many times I want to projectile regurgitate at reading this quoted post. . .
Maybe it's because your answer makes no sense. I honestly don't remember you answering it but I may have missed the posts.
Quote from: me on September 20, 2015, 12:31:05 AM
Maybe it's because your answer makes no sense. I honestly don't remember you answering it but I may have missed the posts.
Been answering it for 7 years now. A lot of us have . . . 😱
Quote from: Palehorse on September 20, 2015, 07:30:45 PM
Been answering it for 7 years now. A lot of us have . . . 😱
:yes:
Guess it made no sense then and was mostly forgettable.
Quote from: Palehorse on September 20, 2015, 07:30:45 PM
Been answering it for 7 years now. A lot of us have . . . 😱
Don't be stupid!
It's due to Laissez-Faire Capitalism - that predatory and corrupt economic policy you and Hank support.
Have you heard what Kevin McCarthy (R), the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner said on live TV that surely made Hillary Clinton :biggrin: :rotfl: :split:? It was on the news here yesterday morning just before the mass shooting in Oregon hit the news.
E.J. Dionne: Kevin McCarthy's truthful gaffe
21 hours ago • E.J. Dionne • ejdionne@washpost.com
"So now we know: One of the principal reasons Republicans spent so much public money investigating the tragic Benghazi episode was to bring down Hillary Clinton's poll numbers.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the likely successor to House Speaker John Boehner, told Fox News' Sean Hannity explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a "strategy to fight and win."
He explained: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought."
The Republican-led House hasn't been particularly good at governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when there's a future election to influence?
No doubt Republicans will clean up after McCarthy's comments by insisting that the politics were a side benefit from a necessary investigation. But it would be nice to know more about the House GOP's internal deliberations as it launched one inquiry into Clinton after another. Did we need another investigation by the select committee headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.? After all, a two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound at Benghazi.
Taxpayers might be interested in learning whether their hard-earned money — sorry, I could not resist invoking that favorite GOP cliche — was going out the door primarily to affect the chances of one particular candidate for president. How much? Rob Garver of the Fiscal Times has estimated that the select committee "will likely spend some $6 million by next year."
McCarthy's statement does not make Clinton's problems disappear miraculously. She has suffered damage, some of it self-inflicted, from using a private server during her time at the State Department. Clinton herself has acknowledged that she should have used a government server. Almost no one in her own party believes that she handled the ensuing controversy particularly well. She has recalibrated her response in recent weeks, accepting that she has to answer the questions and meet the challenges thrown her way from journalists and political foes alike.
Fine. But McCarthy's statement gave Democrats what they have long sought: a rather strong public hint that this investigation was never on the level. "This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the committee's ranking Democrat. "The core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and never to conduct an evenhanded search for the facts." Clinton's defenders hope McCarthy's statement might prod the media to pay attention to the current behavior of the accusers and not just the past behavior of the accused.
McCarthy's admission once again ratified the writer Michael Kinsley's long-ago but still brilliant observation that a gaffe occurs "when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." But why did McCarthy do it? Consider the nature of the House Republican Party he'd like to lead.
The main objection of right-wingers in the House to Boehner and their other leaders is that they have not been tough enough as partisans and ideologues. As Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., told The Washington Post's Robert Costa: "We'd be in better shape if we were more rhetorically aggressive with the administration."
Now, perhaps I lack imagination, but I don't know how much more rhetorically aggressive the House GOP could be with President Obama than it has already been — short of accusing the entire administration of treason. But McCarthy wants to mollify the right end of his caucus (and the conservative talk-show complex), so notice the end of his statement emphasizing how Republicans had "fought" to bring Clinton's numbers down. See, McCarthy was telling his party's ultras, we've been really, really partisan — and effective, too. And I'm sure McCarthy was pleased when Hannity gave him a pat on the back. "That's something good," Hannity said. "I give you credit for that."
Bill and Hillary Clinton have been lucky over the years in having a cast of characters arrayed against them who always overplayed their hand. McCarthy, who kept a poker table in his Sacramento house during his days in the California Legislature, went all in a bit too early."
E.J. Dionne
ejdionne@washpost.com
Copyright the Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com
And Harry Reid lied about Romney to bring his poll numbers down. What's the difference? She broke the law period.
Quote from: me on October 03, 2015, 01:10:31 PM
And Harry Reid lied about Romney to bring his poll numbers down. What's the difference? She broke the law period.
What law? Prove it. As usual, you're still full of bull shit, Clarabell. :jester:
Quote from: me on October 03, 2015, 01:10:31 PM
And Harry Reid lied about Romney to bring his poll numbers down. What's the difference? She broke the law period.
Quote from: The Troll on October 03, 2015, 03:04:31 PM
What law? Prove it. As usual, you're still full of bull shit, Clarabell. :jester:
That's a reasonable request. What law?
Quote from: libby on October 04, 2015, 12:44:45 AM
That's a reasonable request. What law?
Private server, classified information, ring a bell?
Quote from: me on October 04, 2015, 01:50:42 AM
Private server, classified information, ring a bell?
:rolleyes: Yes, indeed. I am very familiar with what has been going on. And the problem is/has not been what the former Secretary of State did or did not do while in office. What the Congress republicans have been doing is political, and McCarthy (R) has learned a hard lesson. To put it simply, you don't brag about dirty tricks publicly until AFTER you get what you want. In fact, smart people don't brag about them at all.
Quote from: libby on October 04, 2015, 01:51:57 PM
:rolleyes: Yes, indeed. I am very familiar with what has been going on. And the problem is/has not been what the former Secretary of State did or did not do while in office. What the Congress republicans have been doing is political, and McCarthy (R) has learned a hard lesson. To put it simply, you don't brag about dirty tricks publicly until AFTER you get what you want. In fact, smart people don't brag about them at all.
But Harry Reid lying about Romney isn't worse? I mean he flat lied and is proud of it at least what was brought out about Hillary has truth to it and is totally wrong doing on her part.
You are comparing someone at the Secretary of State level at a time of international crisis to two quarreling politicians.
I have a suggestion: watch today's edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. It's comes on here at 9:a.m. and twice more during the day. Listen carefully to every word Brit Hume said, take note of the timbre of his voice and the look on his face, and maybe you will get a clue about the seriousness of what McCarthy put out there for the whole world to see and hear.
I am a lifelong democrat, but I don't blindly follow what anyone says or does. I am a fan of Brit Hume, and I don't ever remember seeing him look or sound as defeated as he did this morning.
Quote from: me on October 04, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
But Harry Reid lying about Romney isn't worse? I mean he flat lied and is proud of it at least what was brought out about Hillary has truth to it and is totally wrong doing on her part.
If you want to talk about ancient history, what about all of the lies in Swift boating of John Kerry by the Republicans. All of the things they said about John was proved to be lies, Sweet Lips. :kiss:
Quote from: The Troll on October 04, 2015, 07:25:58 PM
If you want to talk about ancient history, what about all of the lies in Swift boating of John Kerry by the Republicans. All of the things they said about John was proved to be lies, Sweet Lips. :kiss:
Uh no, it wasn't.
Quote from: libby on October 04, 2015, 01:51:57 PM
:rolleyes: Yes, indeed. I am very familiar with what has been going on. And the problem is/has not been what the former Secretary of State did or did not do while in office. What the Congress republicans have been doing is political, and McCarthy (R) has learned a hard lesson. To put it simply, you don't brag about dirty tricks publicly until AFTER you get what you want. In fact, smart people don't brag about them at all.
I'm thinking that commitee was put together before she even thought about running for president and it's the server thing that's bringing her down at the polls now. What he said just gave them a chance to do damage control, if possible, and yes, it was rather silly for him to have said that.
Quote from: me on October 04, 2015, 09:31:03 PM
I'm thinking that commitee was put together before she even thought about running for president and it's the server thing that's bringing her down at the polls now. What he said just gave them a chance to do damage control, if possible, and yes, it was rather silly for him to have said that.
huh ?
Quote from: libby on October 04, 2015, 11:31:17 PM
huh ?
What I read was an MSNBC thing where they were blaming the Benghazi committee investigation because of his statement. Well duh, that along with the server thing is to blame for her slide in the polls. Maybe he shouldn't have made the statement but it's the truth because it shows her to be untrustworthy. Put into context it was a statement about past actions which have affected her in the present not something that was done recently or done for the specific purpose of causing her to slide in the polls. When that investigation was going on no one had a clue she would be running for president.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-calls-mccarthys-benghazi-172627073.html
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/09/kevin-mccarthy-admits-benghazi-all-about
Quote from: me on October 04, 2015, 09:14:59 PM
Uh no, it wasn't.
What did the say about John that was the truth. You can name or repeat one. Again you're just talking bullshit. :yes: :rolleyes:
I did not read your sources; don't intend to. Your justification has already been put forth by others who are trying to reinterpret what McCarthy blurted out. :rolleyes: The problem is ignorance and malice. You and a lot of others will never know or understand the truth, which is that the republicans in the House concocted a scheme to bring Hillary Clinton down. The investigations of her behavior regarding the notorious server should never have been made public -- if there had been a problem it would have been taken care of by the proper SECURITY people! :rolleyes:
To quote from the article I posted above: "A two year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound at Benghazi." Why not Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State? I'll tell you why: they had something special in store for her. (It's laughable that all they had was a private server in her home. But. If I tell you how/why I know that, I'll have to kill you.) :sneaky: :wall:
Quote from: libby on October 05, 2015, 12:35:12 PM
I did not read your sources; don't intend to. Your justification has already been put forth by others who are trying to reinterpret what McCarthy blurted out. :rolleyes: The problem is ignorance and malice. You and a lot of others will never know or understand the truth, which is that the republicans in the House concocted a scheme to bring Hillary Clinton down. The investigations of her behavior regarding the notorious server should never have been made public -- if there had been a problem it would have been taken care of by the proper SECURITY people! :rolleyes:
To quote from the article I posted above: "A two year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee cleared the military and the CIA of improper behavior in response to the 2012 attack on the diplomatic compound at Benghazi." Why not Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State? I'll tell you why: they had something special in store for her. (It's laughable that all they had was a private server in her home. But. If I tell you how/why I know that, I'll have to kill you.) :sneaky: :wall:
Uh, it's Hillary in a Yahoo news report with a video of Hillary on an MSNBC program and the other one is a McCarthy video showing the interview on which he made his statement. Suit yourself.