For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

 

[toshiba]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

Hell 1/2 the country thinks she'll be better that the current president the other half thinks she'll be better then his predecessor, some think better than both. We are here after the both of them a Clinton presidency sounds good to me!

 

[squistion]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

The meaning of words can change over time, that is a fact. Remember when "gay" meant happy? I suppose you would have said 40 years ago, "why do they insist on calling themselves gay instead of homosexual, when homosexual already means that?"

People do have the right to label themselves and do not have to accept labels imposed by others.

Most of us progressives view the term progressive as deriving from the word progress, not from some long ago political movement. And despite what Tim suggests, progressives of 100 years ago (like Teddy Roosevelt) were hardly acting like Fascists, Communists or the KKK. But even if that were true, that is not the common association the average person has with the word progressive, and if it did it would never have been adopted as an alternative to liberal. For an analogy, remember how quickly the Tea Party discarded the term Tea Bagger (which they first called themselves) when they found out what the slang term means.

I didn't suggest that at all.

OK, what were you suggesting then? Or were you just trying out a lame joke that failed miserably? We were talking about the term progressive and I mentioned it didn't really matter to those of us who call ourselves that about 100 year old associations with a movement that is generally forgotten by most people today, and then you come up with the Fascist, Communist and Jim Crow reference.

 

[Jim11]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

Well, it would be tough to be worse, but if anyone can do it, she can.

 

[timschochet]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

The meaning of words can change over time, that is a fact. Remember when "gay" meant happy? I suppose you would have said 40 years ago, "why do they insist on calling themselves gay instead of homosexual, when homosexual already means that?"

People do have the right to label themselves and do not have to accept labels imposed by others.

Most of us progressives view the term progressive as deriving from the word progress, not from some long ago political movement. And despite what Tim suggests, progressives of 100 years ago (like Teddy Roosevelt) were hardly acting like Fascists, Communists or the KKK. But even if that were true, that is not the common association the average person has with the word progressive, and if it did it would never have been adopted as an alternative to liberal. For an analogy, remember how quickly the Tea Party discarded the term Tea Bagger (which they first called themselves) when they found out what the slang term means.

I didn't suggest that at all.

OK, what were you suggesting then? Or were you just trying out a lame joke that failed miserably? We were talking about the term progressive and I mentioned it didn't really matter to those of us who call ourselves that about 100 year old associations with a movement that is generally forgotten by most people today, and then you come up with the Fascist, Communist and Jim Crow reference.

Pretty much nailed it. I just thought the whole conversation was kind of silly. Who cares what a word meant 100 years ago?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

Hell 1/2 the country thinks she'll be better that the current president the other half thinks she'll be better then his predecessor, some think better than both. We are here after the both of them a Clinton presidency sounds good to me!

Well, we're already used to train wrecks with this current guy in office so at least we'll know what to expect.

 

[toshiba]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

Hell 1/2 the country thinks she'll be better that the current president the other half thinks she'll be better then his predecessor, some think better than both. We are here after the both of them a Clinton presidency sounds good to me!

Well, we're already used to train wrecks with this current guy in office so at least we'll know what to expect.

I know this country has fallen to pieces during the Obama presidency compared to where we were when he took over.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[NREC34]

Yep just 7 years since W. Easy to forget what it was like after a bit of time.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

The only reason this dirty, slimeball, career politician wins is if there is no better option.

1969: worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez1971: worked at the Yale Child Study Center,[37] learning about new research on early childhood brain development and working as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child

1971: interned at the Oakland, California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

1973: volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor

1970s: served as staff attorney for Children's Defense Fund

1974: became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas

1977: joined the Rose Law Firm

1978: board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation

 

[skol asylum]

I can't believe how terrible my life has been under Obama. Let's see. Barry enters the White House at the beginning of the biggest fiscal collapse since the great depression. My retirement fund is in free fall. Housing values have collapsed. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been forgotten as W admits he doesn't even think about him much. Fast forward to today. I own a home i purchased at the bottom of the market and have a historically low interest rate and a large cushion of equity in it. My 401K has rebounded quite nicely as the stock market has recovered near record highs. We have pulled most of our presence out of the middle east and stopped wasting money and blood for pretty much nothing. Oh, we did get that Bin Laden guy. Employment is still soft but slowly recovering. Yeah, disaster.

Four more years.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

If you think a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would be the same you haven't been paying much attention. Hillary will never even have the conversation Sanders would. And we need to have the conversation.

Yes Sanders would say certain things that Hillary will not (although early in this campaign Hillary is sounding pretty populist.) But in terms of actually DOING anything, neither one would be able to do anything other than hold the line.

Hillary is only slightly less populist than you. I don't buy this populist stance from her for one second. She is a dedicated 3rd wayer.

 

[tommyGunZ]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

If you think a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would be the same you haven't been paying much attention. Hillary will never even have the conversation Sanders would. And we need to have the conversation.

Yes Sanders would say certain things that Hillary will not (although early in this campaign Hillary is sounding pretty populist.) But in terms of actually DOING anything, neither one would be able to do anything other than hold the line.

Hillary is only slightly less populist than you. I don't buy this populist stance from her for one second. She is a dedicated 3rd wayer.

Which moves the ball forward far more than a guy like Sanders would in our current political climate.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way, I'm a "progressive" democrat that hates Hillary and won't vote for her in the general election. I think she is the epitome of the status quo of elite control in this country and I'm disgusted that she's adopting the rhetoric of real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or my own local Keith Ellison to try to ride public perception to an easy victory. I really hope Bernie runs and gets a chance to shred her in a debate for what she really is.

mcintyre, I'd like you (and anyone else who feels the same way, like NC Commish) to refer to my post above #774. Given the political dysfunction between the two parties, it doesn't matter whether or not Hillary is "status quo" or a true progressive like Bernie Sanders. Let's say in a fantasy world Bernie Sanders is actually elected President. With a House of Representatives controlled by conservative Republicans, what would he be able to do?1. Keep them from repealing Obamacare.

2. Keep them from changing the tax code, Social Security, and Medicare in a conservative manner.

3. Maintain Obama's foreign policy.

4. Nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

And that's it. Bernie could not move this nation in a progressive direction no matter how much he might want to. All of his proposals for economic justice, banking restrictions, etc., would be shot down the moment he proposed them. And everything that I just described above is exactly what Hillary will do as well. No difference between them at all. They might think differently, have very different motives, but their Presidencies would be largely the same.

If you think a Sanders presidency and a Clinton presidency would be the same you haven't been paying much attention. Hillary will never even have the conversation Sanders would. And we need to have the conversation.

Yes Sanders would say certain things that Hillary will not (although early in this campaign Hillary is sounding pretty populist.) But in terms of actually DOING anything, neither one would be able to do anything other than hold the line.

Hillary is only slightly less populist than you. I don't buy this populist stance from her for one second. She is a dedicated 3rd wayer.

Which moves the ball forward far more than a guy like Sanders would in our current political climate.

Yeah to the right or haven't you noticed?

 

[NCCommish]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

BTW McCain plans to run for the Senate again.

Really?At his age?

 

[squistion]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

Who or what is this 3rd Way you keep talking about?

 

[timschochet]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

Who or what is this 3rd Way you keep talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

 

[skol asylum]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

Who or what is this 3rd Way you keep talking about?

He wants to have a 3 way with Bill and Hill.

 

[squistion]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

Who or what is this 3rd Way you keep talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

Can you give me the Cliff Notes on that? Who are these people and why should we care?

 

[timschochet]

Basically centrist Democrats. Remember how Bill Cinton favored NAFTA and welfare reform? It's just another name for pro business moderates in the Democratic Party.

 

[timschochet]

I will add that for discontented liberals, it also has come to encapsulate Obama's decisions not to close Gitmo and to allow the NSA to do its thing. And stuff like Feinstein defending the NSA and Hillary voting for the Iraq war and all of them defending free trade while the unions get weaker, and Dems accepting corporate donations. When NC complains about the Third Way I expect he's pissed about all of this stuff.

 

[squistion]

I will add that for discontented liberals, it also has come to encapsulate Obama's decisions not to close Gitmo and to allow the NSA to do its thing. And stuff like Feinstein defending the NSA and Hillary voting for the Iraq war and all of them defending free trade while the unions get weaker, and Dems accepting corporate donations. When NC complains about the Third Way I expect he's pissed about all of this stuff.

But what power do they actually have? This has the flavor of worrying about The Gay Mafia.

 

[tommyboy]

And, also, progressives are ugly folk, historically.

Indeed, that is the big sticking point that prevents a lot of liberals from ever adopting the term progressive.

Can either of you unpack that statement for me? I feel like I've read a lot about the history of progressivism in the US, and that isn't a takeaway that I would have at all. Unless maybe we're talking about the 1950's era "Progressive Party" that was almost closer to a Communist Party than anything else. The turn of the century/FDR progressives that I'd argue most people associate with the term don't have much to apologize for, though.

My response was facetious, hopefully the OP was too - although I must admit Teddy Roosevelt never probably made the "Sexiest Man Alive" list in his day.

No, the history of the progressive movement is littered with Roosevelt's and Wilson's racism and nativistic war-like impulses, eugenics, forced abortion, forced sterilization, prohibitionist reformers, Victorian feminists, you name it. It's one of the worst periods in American intellectual history. Truly ugly. They're ugly people with ugly opinions.

Yeah, alright. Completely ignore historical context. Do I get to bring up conservative's historical defense of racism now?

Yeah, no. The Republican party abolished slavery and passed the civil rights act

It was a Democratic bill, sponsored by two Democratic Presidents. It was opposed largely by Southern Democrats, who became Republican almost immediately afterward largely because the bill had been sponsored by Democrats. It was also opposed by the Republican Presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater.

And yet more Republicans voted for it than Democrats

 

[tommyboy]

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

Yes, I am sure they were completely serious when they said:"Did she include cheese and sour cream? This information, much like the contents of some of her emails when she was secretary of state, we may never know."

And closing with this line:

"You may resume your lives."

two sentences out of 6 paragraphs doesnt equal humor.

 

[squistion]

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

Yes, I am sure they were completely serious when they said:"Did she include cheese and sour cream? This information, much like the contents of some of her emails when she was secretary of state, we may never know."

And closing with this line:

"You may resume your lives."

two sentences out of 6 paragraphs doesnt equal humor.

Duh. No, not when they are viewed in isolation. Google "context" - it might help you here.

 

[flapgreen]

You guys seem to forget that 3rd ways whole mission is to be just a little less conservative than the GOP while still sucking big monies ****. So as the GOP races off the cliff 3rd wayers are merrily following them over it.

Who or what is this 3rd Way you keep talking about?

He wants to have a 3 way with Bill and Hill.

:X

 

[tommyboy]

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

Yes, I am sure they were completely serious when they said:"Did she include cheese and sour cream? This information, much like the contents of some of her emails when she was secretary of state, we may never know."

And closing with this line:

"You may resume your lives."

two sentences out of 6 paragraphs doesnt equal humor.

Duh. No, not when they are viewed in isolation. Google "context" - it might help you here.

Did you even read the article? It appears you didn't, because its not funny, at all.

 

[apalmer]

That is such a silly argument that I thought you joking, but then I remembered you lacked a sense of humor regarding the NYT piece. Like people would even care about what was considered progressive 100 years ago or who was in the movement. Seriously, Woodrow Wilson is going to taint the word for us?

The nyt piece wasnt humor

Yes, I am sure they were completely serious when they said:"Did she include cheese and sour cream? This information, much like the contents of some of her emails when she was secretary of state, we may never know."

And closing with this line:

"You may resume your lives."

two sentences out of 6 paragraphs doesnt equal humor.

Duh. No, not when they are viewed in isolation. Google "context" - it might help you here.

Did you even read the article? It appears you didn't, because its not funny, at all.

Conservative reaction: "Where does the article say that Obama and Clinton are slimeballs? If it doesn't do that, how can you say it's funny? Listen to Limbaugh for an hour if you want to hear funny."

 

[The Commish]

Squisition is right. Who the #### cares what some word meant 100 years ago?

I'm forming a new political party: the Fascist Communist Jim Crows. Our platform will be free beer.

Not sure this is the right question at all. The question should be, "why are you insisting on changing the meaning of a word when there are other words that already mean that?"

The meaning of words can change over time, that is a fact. Remember when "gay" meant happy? I suppose you would have said 40 years ago, "why do they insist on calling themselves gay instead of homosexual, when homosexual already means that?"

People do have the right to label themselves and do not have to accept labels imposed by others.

Most of us progressives view the term progressive as deriving from the word progress, not from some long ago political movement. And despite what Tim suggests, progressives of 100 years ago (like Teddy Roosevelt) were hardly acting like Fascists, Communists or the KKK. But even if that were true, that is not the common association the average person has with the word progressive, and if it did it would never have been adopted as an alternative to liberal. For an analogy, remember how quickly the Tea Party discarded the term Tea Bagger (which they first called themselves) when they found out what the slang term means.

Interesting and ironic to say the least. Don't really care what you call yourself honestly. I find it interesting when people attempt to shed a term because of their perception or the perception imposed by others, especially if what you say above is true as it being part of "progress".

 

[The Commish]

I will add that for discontented liberals, it also has come to encapsulate Obama's decisions not to close Gitmo and to allow the NSA to do its thing. And stuff like Feinstein defending the NSA and Hillary voting for the Iraq war and all of them defending free trade while the unions get weaker, and Dems accepting corporate donations. When NC complains about the Third Way I expect he's pissed about all of this stuff.

But what power do they actually have? This has the flavor of worrying about The Gay Mafia.

It's those moderate democrats that force liberal democrats to the middle, those moderate democrats that water down legislation to "baby steps" because they don't want to rock the boat (lose their jobs) when it comes to the seismic changes necessary to get this country back on track. They have plenty of power.

 

[bigbottom]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

The New York Times keeping at the email scandal story, releasing this piece last night.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html

I doubt the Clinton campaign views the Times as kissing her butt.

 

[NCCommish]

I will add that for discontented liberals, it also has come to encapsulate Obama's decisions not to close Gitmo and to allow the NSA to do its thing. And stuff like Feinstein defending the NSA and Hillary voting for the Iraq war and all of them defending free trade while the unions get weaker, and Dems accepting corporate donations. When NC complains about the Third Way I expect he's pissed about all of this stuff.

Pretty sure I have made my very negative impressions on most of that very clear on more than one occasion.

 

[FlapJacks]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

The New York Times keeping at the email scandal story, releasing this piece last night.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.htmlI doubt the Clinton campaign views the Times as kissing her butt.

They are doing the same thing they did with every other controversy....get it out there before it really matters and without much emphasis...then when the election season comes around, they can just say it's old news....It's scandal management 101...

 

[Yenrub]

No way Hillary wins

One demographically symbolic president is enough

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/nra-wayne-lapierre-obama-demographically-symbolic/

 

[Chadstroma]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

I don't think the NYT was doing Hillary any favors, she went in public in OHIO and didn't bother to talk to anyone. Great instincts there.

 

[General Malaise]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

We're still doing this? Unreal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The New York Times deems Hillary's Chipotle order "Above Average"

It seems they have dislodged their collectives noses out of President Obama's rear end long enough to sample hers.

The New York Times keeping at the email scandal story, releasing this piece last night.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html

I doubt the Clinton campaign views the Times as kissing her butt.

I agree. The NYT has been on it and the story on having received notice to retain emails in 2012 would probably result in a spoliation judgement against any CEO in the country in any and every court of law under similar circumstances.

 

[Jim11]

Congenital liar.

https://vine.co/v/ezuQmYE3uiE

 

[Jack White]

I am not a Hillary fan by any means but honestly if she is elected the bright side is she will be a better President than the train wreck we have now.

Wrong.

Every president is a little (in some cases, a lot) worse than his predecessor.

 

[General Malaise]

I can't believe how terrible my life has been under Obama. Let's see. Barry enters the White House at the beginning of the biggest fiscal collapse since the great depression. My retirement fund is in free fall. Housing values have collapsed. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been forgotten as W admits he doesn't even think about him much. Fast forward to today. I own a home i purchased at the bottom of the market and have a historically low interest rate and a large cushion of equity in it. My 401K has rebounded quite nicely as the stock market has recovered near record highs. We have pulled most of our presence out of the middle east and stopped wasting money and blood for pretty much nothing. Oh, we did get that Bin Laden guy. Employment is still soft but slowly recovering. Yeah, disaster.

Four more years.

• Let's not forget that more Americans have health care today than at any time in our nation's history.
• Gays can now proudly and openly serve in our military.
• Gays in many states can now MARRY their partners.
• Gasoline prices are WAY down.
• The US Auto Industry did NOT die; it is in fact thriving.
• Jobs are coming back to America.
• Weed is legalized in two states with many more to follow!!!!!!!!

Yup, sure does suck now. THANKS OBAMA!

 

[Mile High]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[General Malaise]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

Then you have nothing to worry about.

Yeah, no kidding. Sure does seem like Republicans waste a lot of butt hurt emotion on a woman who has no shot at being president.

Signed,

Guy who got suspended form this board several times for bashing Palin

 

[Willie Neslon]

I just saw something that posted a poll that MSNBC did where 80 something percent voted "No" to the question of whether or not you plan on voting for Hillary. The only thing that would have not shocked me is if you got the same kind of result if Fox put up the poll. It can't be good for you if you are the presumtive nominee for the left party and the leading left leaning news org puts a poll up and you get blasted that badly.

You shouldn't get hung up on the 80% number unless you're comparing it to other candidate's results in that poll. 20% saying they would vote for someone in a poll like that would be the highest percentage but a wide margin at this stage of the game. It is not an either/or poll.

 

[FlapJacks]

I can't believe how terrible my life has been under Obama. Let's see. Barry enters the White House at the beginning of the biggest fiscal collapse since the great depression. My retirement fund is in free fall. Housing values have collapsed. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been forgotten as W admits he doesn't even think about him much. Fast forward to today. I own a home i purchased at the bottom of the market and have a historically low interest rate and a large cushion of equity in it. My 401K has rebounded quite nicely as the stock market has recovered near record highs. We have pulled most of our presence out of the middle east and stopped wasting money and blood for pretty much nothing. Oh, we did get that Bin Laden guy. Employment is still soft but slowly recovering. Yeah, disaster.

Four more years.

• Let's not forget that more Americans have health care today than at any time in our nation's history.
• Gays can now proudly and openly serve in our military.
• Gays in many states can now MARRY their partners.
• Gasoline prices are WAY down.
• The US Auto Industry did NOT die; it is in fact thriving.
• Jobs are coming back to America.
• Weed is legalized in two states with many more to follow!!!!!!!!

Yup, sure does suck now. THANKS OBAMA!

1 you are going to have to show your work here

2 give you this one

3 no thanks to Obama on that one

4 that's like giving Reagan credit for ending Apartheid. Happened in spite of him and because his powers are limited

5 GM did in fact go through bankruptcy,....I don't see where McCain or Obama would have any significantly different process or result

6 if you mean undocumented people coming to America and taking low wage work from the poor, then yea

7 again, Obama really had little input here

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's not forget that more Americans have health care today than at any time in our nation's history.

In the city of NO and the State of LA we had something called the Charity Hospital system. Anyone could walk in there and get health care, regardless of coverage, and if you didn't have the means you didn't have to pay for it.

Now, there is no Charity Hospital and there is no public replacement here, and public hospitals are being converted to private hospitals because ACA has cut Medicare reimbursements, so actually there are fewer people here getting HC than ever before.

 

[Eminence]

I can't believe how terrible my life has been under Obama. Let's see. Barry enters the White House at the beginning of the biggest fiscal collapse since the great depression. My retirement fund is in free fall. Housing values have collapsed. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been forgotten as W admits he doesn't even think about him much. Fast forward to today. I own a home i purchased at the bottom of the market and have a historically low interest rate and a large cushion of equity in it. My 401K has rebounded quite nicely as the stock market has recovered near record highs. We have pulled most of our presence out of the middle east and stopped wasting money and blood for pretty much nothing. Oh, we did get that Bin Laden guy. Employment is still soft but slowly recovering. Yeah, disaster.

Four more years.

• Let's not forget that more Americans have health care today than at any time in our nation's history.
• Gays can now proudly and openly serve in our military.
• Gays in many states can now MARRY their partners.
• Gasoline prices are WAY down.
• The US Auto Industry did NOT die; it is in fact thriving.
• Jobs are coming back to America.
• Weed is legalized in two states with many more to follow!!!!!!!!

Yup, sure does suck now. THANKS OBAMA!

I don't know, that's kind of silly. I wouldn't really Obama credit for things that could be the economy running course by itself.

What is the longterm effect of everyone getting healthcare? Longterm effect of amnesty of illegals?

Those weed and gay success stories are a matter of opinion. I'd rather we have stuck to the status quo.

ISIS down?

Iran nuclear talks?

Low gas prices is more to do with a surplus than anything Obama did.

 

[mcintyre1]

Can you give me the Cliff Notes on that? Who are these people and why should we care?

Seriously? Come on, man. If you've been paying attention to the politics of the last 20 years there should be no way that you don't understand what that term means or why you should care who those people are. They have effectively been the party leadership of the Dems since Bill's days and have resulted in a steady rightward shift on economic policy since their rise to power. If you could boil down my opposition to Hillary to one bullet point, that'd be it.

 

[Mile High]

I can't believe how terrible my life has been under Obama. Let's see. Barry enters the White House at the beginning of the biggest fiscal collapse since the great depression. My retirement fund is in free fall. Housing values have collapsed. We are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has been forgotten as W admits he doesn't even think about him much. Fast forward to today. I own a home i purchased at the bottom of the market and have a historically low interest rate and a large cushion of equity in it. My 401K has rebounded quite nicely as the stock market has recovered near record highs. We have pulled most of our presence out of the middle east and stopped wasting money and blood for pretty much nothing. Oh, we did get that Bin Laden guy. Employment is still soft but slowly recovering. Yeah, disaster.

Four more years.

• Let's not forget that more Americans have health care today than at any time in our nation's history.
• Gays can now proudly and openly serve in our military.
• Gays in many states can now MARRY their partners.
• Gasoline prices are WAY down.
• The US Auto Industry did NOT die; it is in fact thriving.
• Jobs are coming back to America.
• Weed is legalized in two states with many more to follow!!!!!!!!

Yup, sure does suck now. THANKS OBAMA!

I don't know, that's kind of silly. I wouldn't really Obama credit for things that could be the economy running course by itself.

What is the longterm effect of everyone getting healthcare? Longterm effect of amnesty of illegals?

Those weed and gay success stories are a matter of opinion. I'd rather we have stuck to the status quo.

ISIS down?

Iran nuclear talks?

Low gas prices is more to do with a surplus than anything Obama did.

Doesn't seem to matter who the president is or who the next one will be then. Things will all work out.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is so FOS:

Mezvinsky hedge fund suffers setbackA hedge fund co-founded by Bill and Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law Mark Mezvinsky lost investors millions due to unfortunate bets on the Greek economy, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

Mezvinsky and his two co-founders, all Goldman Sachs alums, wrote to investors in their Eaglevale Partners LP that they were “incorrect” in their predictions about the Greek economy. These predictions led the fund to decrease by 3.6 percent last year, while similar hedge funds gained during a period of American economic growth.


After the leftist party Syriza party triumphed in Greek elections last week and Alexis Tspiras became prime minister, the fund’s founders, including Mezvinsky, sent out a message lamenting their incorrect predictions. “We are reticent to render decisive predictions at this time,” the three added.

One Eaglevale fund of around $15 million solely emphasized investments in Greece and lost 48 percent of its value last year, according to the Journal.

Chelsea Clinton and Mezvinsky tied the knot in 2010. The couple had their first child, Charlotte, last September.

Mezvinsky, the son of former Pennsylvania Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, and his partners founded Eaglevale at the end of 2011, with the help of Goldman Sachs executives including CEO Lloyd Blankfein, who is currently an investor in Eaglevale’s main fund.

The fund lost 1.96 percent in 2012 and gained 2.06 percent in 2013, before 2014’s losses. The Journal reported that Eaglevale still believes Greek equities are due to increase and will continue to invest in the country.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/chelsea-clinton-mark-mezvinsky-hedge-fund-loss-114880.html#ixzz3XQ7yAcoG

This is a 400 million dollar fund that profits from “pursuing a so-called macro strategy that looks to profit from global macroeconomic trends,” per the WSJ. - And another reminder: her personal email server, that used to contain public data which she destroyed, was registered to a JP Morgan Chase bond broker.

For reference:

"And there’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days," she added. "And there’s something wrong when students and their families have to go deeply into debt to be able to get the education and skills they need in order to make the best of their own lives."