Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squiz my point was about public appearances in front of large crowds and her refusal to take open questions from the press. The announcement from Podesta made clear she was headed for Iowa to campaign, so let me know when we have video if either of those two things, though obviously that could happen anytime between tomorrow and the actual kickoff event.

 

[Courtjester]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

 

[squistion]

Squiz my point was about public appearances in front of large crowds and her refusal to take open questions from the press. The announcement from Podesta made clear she was headed for Iowa to campaign, so let me know when we have video if either of those two things, though obviously that could happen anytime between tomorrow and the actual kickoff event.

You keep talking about the size of the crowds, but that is irrelevant, a small crowd, a medium size crowd, or a big crowd makes no difference if she is in front of people and there are cameras present.

And of course if she did speak before a large crowd then the talk would be she is viewing this a coronation (see how many turned out!). I am convinced that no matter what she does, she can't win with people like you, because you will find fault with it (as you seemingly have with everything she has either done or not done so far).

 

[shadrap]

Hillary will banter & promise to her base. Cripes, I can't even finish this. Makes me ill.

 

[squistion]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable.

I keep hearing that, but it is not backed up by polling I have seen. You don't find her likable, but most people don't seem to share that perception. This was from March, Pew Research Center/USA Today, and only 36% of respondents found Hillary "Hard to Like" - If indeed she wasn't likable, as you contend, the numbers would be much higher than that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2014/03/04/poll-hillary-clinton-is-more-than-likeable-enough/

Poll: Hillary Clinton is more than likeable enough

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

More than a lack of likeability it is a lack of enthusiasm by even those that support her. I think a majority of Democrats will end up supporting Hillary because she can win the general election over a GOP candidate. Their top reason for voting for her is because she can win as opposed to voting for her because of her policies or a general excitement for what she could accomplish as President.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Squiz you have a point about their limiting the size of the crowds to blunt the appearance of coronation.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

The GOP's best hope is having two of their best candidates end up running as a team. I don't think Rubio will get the nomination, but him as the VP candidate could spell victory. The GOP has no chance if they don't find a way to get more votes from minorities. And they need to keep extreme nuts like Ted Cruz far away from the nomination.

 

[squistion]

Squiz you have a point about their limiting the size of the crowds to blunt the appearance of coronation.

Thanks. I am often quite critical of you (actually probably more exasperated than anything else) but I got to give you props that you are one the few here of any stripe that will actually acknowledge that the other side made a valid point. And I respect you for that (even though we rarely agree on much of anything).

 

[Jim11]

Hillary Clinton scandals:

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Hillary-Clinton-Scandals

 

[Jim11]

Hillary Clinton accomplishments:

- Married Blil Clinton

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Squiz you have a point about their limiting the size of the crowds to blunt the appearance of coronation.

Small gatherings is how you win Iowa. And by winning I mean leaving no doubt that can turn into an opening for New Hampshire to get in to the act.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Hillary Clinton accomplishments:

- Married Blil Clinton

Too young and inexperienced?

 

[timschochet]

Hillary Clinton scandals:

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Hillary-Clinton-Scandals

You sure you want to be quoting this link, Jim?

Evidence of Zionist influence over Hillary Clinton is circumstantial, but extensive. n 2010, Hillary Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, married into the Jewish-Zionist Mezvinsky family. Her husband Marc Mezvinsky is an investment banker for Goldman Sachs and is the son of former corrupt politician Edward Mezvinsky, who spent five years in federal prison for fraud. One must wonder how the happy couple met.

This is pretty ugly stuff, even for you..

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

The GOP's best hope is having two of their best candidates end up running as a team. I don't think Rubio will get the nomination, but him as the VP candidate could spell victory. The GOP has no chance if they don't find a way to get more votes from minorities. And they need to keep extreme nuts like Ted Cruz far away from the nomination.

Jeb probably wouldn't risk adding Rubio or any other Floridian to the ticket.

 

[squistion]

Hillary Clinton accomplishments:

- Married Blil Clinton

Jim11 accomplishments:

- FFA Troll

 

[timschochet]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

The GOP's best hope is having two of their best candidates end up running as a team. I don't think Rubio will get the nomination, but him as the VP candidate could spell victory. The GOP has no chance if they don't find a way to get more votes from minorities. And they need to keep extreme nuts like Ted Cruz far away from the nomination.

Jeb probably wouldn't risk adding Rubio or any other Floridian to the ticket.

Won't happen. I think they lose Florida's electoral votes if they do that.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

The GOP's best hope is having two of their best candidates end up running as a team. I don't think Rubio will get the nomination, but him as the VP candidate could spell victory. The GOP has no chance if they don't find a way to get more votes from minorities. And they need to keep extreme nuts like Ted Cruz far away from the nomination.

Jeb probably wouldn't risk adding Rubio or any other Floridian to the ticket.

Won't happen. I think they lose Florida's electoral votes if they do that.

The 12th Amendment is part of it, but not the only reason...

 

[MaxThreshold]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president. They might as well go for the 1st woman train wreck of a president. It's all about "firsts", after all. Quality candidates be damned!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If Hillary were being truthful she'd say, "The best I can do is hold the line. If you guys don't vote for me, you'll get Republican solutions. If you do vote for me, I can keep the status quo. Take your pick!" But then again, maybe she actually believes the nonsense herself. Who knows? Politicians get into this bubble where they think they can effect change.

She should also say that there is a difference between those that work to make government work versus those that setup the government to fail as a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[humpback]

It was hit on earlier. but she isn't likable. And she is over-exposed, people are tired of the Clintons and the people that aren't tired of them (aka the younger voters who were too young to remember Bill's time) are probably not going to turn out for her in droves like they did for Obama.

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

She is going to face withering attacks about her past. She is not going to be able to raise "income equality" as her rallying cry when she will be haunted by her past claims of being almost broke and we could only afford two multi-million dollar mansions when Bill left the White House. She is so out of touch, no one will believe this..

However, I am not counting her out because the GOP will put up someone equally out of touch and they will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory I am sure.

There are a lot more women, so she won't need to carry nearly the same percentage to have a similar advantage.

I think you're vastly underestimating the amount of money she's going to raise as well as the stupidity of the average voter. Plenty of people will believe most of the BS she spews when they see/hear it over and over and over again. And that's only the people who aren't already locked in to vote for her, despite knowing it's BS.

 

[squistion]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president. They might as well go for the 1st woman train wreck of a president. It's all about "firsts", after all. Quality candidates be damned!

Which quality candidates are being push aside in favor of Hillary? On either side? I'm not a fan of Hillary's but I don't see an Obama this time. I don't even see an Edwards. Among those that want the job, are willing to endure the campaign, and is enough of a known name to have a reasonable chance to get on the actual ballot (I didn't say win third party'ers) who is the better choice?

And the train wreck is going to be the Summer of 2017 baby boom if nothing derails Hillary. Invest accordingly!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Vince Foster B 1945 D 1993

Looks like right now we could be setting up for Barry Seal murder conspiracy campaign. Is it a coincidence that Mena is scheduled to come to theaters in 2016?

 

[krista4]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Bleh. I can speak only for me, but I agree with the person who said she's simply not likable. I'm right in the wheelhouse of people who should be enthusiastic supporters--for chrissakes, we went to the same college. And I just can't get excited at all about her, and I hate that because I've never thought we should vote for the person who is "likable" and in fact was angry that people did that with GWB. So, I'm a hypocrite on this.

Will I vote for her vs whatever laughable candidate the Republicans will likely proffer? So far, yes. Don't expect that I'm going to be at all happy about it, though. I have no "pent up enthusiasm" about thinking a female president is possible. I fully expect that it is possible. Just wish it weren't this one.

By the way, tim, I noticed that there is a competing Clinton thread that inexplicably has posts. I think you need to make this ***Official*** complete with the asterisks.

 

[Mister CIA]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Bleh. I can speak only for me, but I agree with the person who said she's simply not likable. I'm right in the wheelhouse of people who should be enthusiastic supporters--for chrissakes, we went to the same college. And I just can't get excited at all about her, and I hate that because I've never thought we should vote for the person who is "likable" and in fact was angry that people did that with GWB. So, I'm a hypocrite on this.

Will I vote for her vs whatever laughable candidate the Republicans will likely proffer? So far, yes. Don't expect that I'm going to be at all happy about it, though. I have no "pent up enthusiasm" about thinking a female president is possible. I fully expect that it is possible. Just wish it weren't this one.

By the way, tim, I noticed that there is a competing Clinton thread that inexplicably has posts. I think you need to make this ***Official*** complete with the asterisks.

I triple-dog dare you to match my $100 contribution to Jim Webb's definitely maybe campaign.

 

[krista4]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Bleh. I can speak only for me, but I agree with the person who said she's simply not likable. I'm right in the wheelhouse of people who should be enthusiastic supporters--for chrissakes, we went to the same college. And I just can't get excited at all about her, and I hate that because I've never thought we should vote for the person who is "likable" and in fact was angry that people did that with GWB. So, I'm a hypocrite on this.

Will I vote for her vs whatever laughable candidate the Republicans will likely proffer? So far, yes. Don't expect that I'm going to be at all happy about it, though. I have no "pent up enthusiasm" about thinking a female president is possible. I fully expect that it is possible. Just wish it weren't this one.

By the way, tim, I noticed that there is a competing Clinton thread that inexplicably has posts. I think you need to make this ***Official*** complete with the asterisks.

I triple-dog dare you to match my $100 contribution to Jim Webb's definitely maybe campaign.

From what I know, could definitely be more interested in him.

And by the way, I've met Hillary multiple times (all years ago) and she is certainly more genuine-seeming and likable in person. I have friends who know her quite well and speak highly. Still...bleh.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I think Jeb will emerge as more likable than the others this round.

 

[Stinger Ray]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

 

[squistion]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

 

[skol asylum]

I think Jeb will emerge as more likable than the others this round.

If by likable you mean most corrupt, well yeah.

 

[Stinger Ray]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

Like I wrote...you continue to prove it. Thanks

 

[squistion]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

Like I wrote...you continue to prove it. Thanks

Pointing out how the good the economy has been under Obama proves it? You're Welcome!

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Jeb probably wouldn't risk adding Rubio or any other Floridian to the ticket.

Won't happen. I think they lose Florida's electoral votes if they do that.

Bush and Rubio wouldn't "lose" Florida's electoral votes if they both ran on the same ticket. But the electors in Florida would be banned from voting for both of them.

So, you could theoretically end up with a scenario where Bush is elected President with 270 electoral votes, but Rubio is not elected Vice President because the Florida electors were forced to vote for someone else for VP (and Rubio ends up with only 241 electoral votes). In that scenario, the Senate would elect the Vice President from the two candidates who received the most electoral votes.

 

[Stinger Ray]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

Like I wrote...you continue to prove it. Thanks

Pointing out how the good the economy has been under Obama proves it? You're Welcome!

You don't get it. It is so easy with you. You want to brag about your stocks yet there are record numbers on food stamps.

 

[squistion]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

Like I wrote...you continue to prove it. Thanks

Pointing out how the good the economy has been under Obama proves it? You're Welcome!

You don't get it. It is so easy with you. You want to brag about your stocks yet there are record numbers on food stamps.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

You don't get it. It is so easy with you. You want to brag about your stocks yet there are record numbers on food stamps.

Technically the peak was 2012.

 

[GroveDiesel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0

Turns out Hillary was asked about her private email account 2 years ago by Congress. And was also asked what kind of certifications had to be made by employees confirming they have turned over all official emails. Hillary never answered either question and the State department's eventual response ignore it but said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”

It's depressing that the Democrats can't find someone less cynically secretive and deceptive.

 

[DocHolliday]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0

Turns out Hillary was asked about her private email account 2 years ago by Congress. And was also asked what kind of certifications had to be made by employees confirming they have turned over all official emails. Hillary never answered either question and the State department's eventual response ignore it but said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”

It's depressing that the Democrats can't find someone less cynically secretive and deceptive.

The Democrats want their officials to be cynical, secretive and deceptive. Winning is all that matters. The agenda is all that matters.

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0

Turns out Hillary was asked about her private email account 2 years ago by Congress. And was also asked what kind of certifications had to be made by employees confirming they have turned over all official emails. Hillary never answered either question and the State department's eventual response ignore it but said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”

It's depressing that the Democrats can't find someone less cynically secretive and deceptive.

The Democrats want their officials to be cynical, secretive and deceptive. Winning is all that matters. The agenda is all that matters.

Yep.

Heaven forbid if it was a Republican that did all the things she did. Democrats would be OUTRAGED! But then again, that's why "hypocrite" is synonymous with "Democrat" (or "Liberal").

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0

Turns out Hillary was asked about her private email account 2 years ago by Congress. And was also asked what kind of certifications had to be made by employees confirming they have turned over all official emails. Hillary never answered either question and the State department's eventual response ignore it but said employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.

It's depressing that the Democrats can't find someone less cynically secretive and deceptive.

The Democrats want their officials to be cynical, secretive and deceptive. Winning is all that matters. The agenda is all that matters.

Yep.

Heaven forbid if it was a Republican that did all the things she did. Democrats would be OUTRAGED! But then again, that's why "hypocrite" is synonymous with "Democrat" (or "Liberal").

Absolutely. This is why you see so much support for her among the Democrats and Liberals on this board.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html?_r=0

Turns out Hillary was asked about her private email account 2 years ago by Congress. And was also asked what kind of certifications had to be made by employees confirming they have turned over all official emails. Hillary never answered either question and the State department's eventual response ignore it but said employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.

It's depressing that the Democrats can't find someone less cynically secretive and deceptive.

The Democrats want their officials to be cynical, secretive and deceptive. Winning is all that matters. The agenda is all that matters.

Yep.

Heaven forbid if it was a Republican that did all the things she did. Democrats would be OUTRAGED! But then again, that's why "hypocrite" is synonymous with "Democrat" (or "Liberal").

And if it WAS a Republican, all of you guys would be just as outraged, ready to boot her from politics? None of you would be dismissive or defensive?

 

[humpback]

The idea of her trying to be the first woman president isn't going to automatically carry the entirety of the female vote the way Obama carried the AA vote and I think that is the premise a lot of the people in charge of the Dem party are hoping for.

I doubt that she will get the entire female vote, but there is already a "gender gap". And I think she will benefit from quite a bit of pent up political enthusiasm of women who still don't dare to think a women president is possible. That energy wasn't released in 2008.

Well, the left is proud owners of the 1st African American train wreck of a president.

Yes, I say that everytime I view my 401k and stock portfolio. What a train wreck!

You look like an #### when you make a post like that

You wouldn't say that if you owned my stock portfolio.

Like I wrote...you continue to prove it. Thanks

Pointing out how the good the economy has been under Obama proves it? You're Welcome!

So that whole income/wealth inequality thing is just a farce, right?

 

[The Commish]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

 

[The Commish]

My policy question is this:

Does Hillary run from, or embrace "obamacare" as part of her platform?

 

[Fennis]

My policy question is this:

Does Hillary run from, or embrace "obamacare" as part of her platform?

Yes

 

[Hang 10]

My policy question is this:

Does Hillary run from, or embrace "obamacare" as part of her platform?

Yes

 

[MaxThreshold]

Damn...I gotta brush the rust off. Been a while since I've been in a political thread. When did stock market performance become analogous to "the economy" as a whole? How'd I miss that one?

It became that way when Obama took office. Prior to the crash when the stock market was recovering from the 9/11 attacks, those very same people that embrace it now as THE indicator of Obama's success were the same ones that wouldn't give credit to Bush.

I believe their reasoning back then was "The president has very little affect on the stock market". Funny how that's now changed.

 

[timschochet]

I think she embraces, but she doesn't have to. All she has to do is respond- every Republican candidate has promised to repeal Obamacare. Even the threat of that will help to solidify Hillary's support among Latinos, whom polls show are very happy with ACA.

All Hillary has to say is: "We've been fighting over healthcare for the last 8 years. Do you really want to go back to that? If I'm elected I might try to tweak Obamacare a little and make it better. But if my opponent wins he'll try to repeal it and then the whole fight starts all over again. Is that what you want? Or can we move forward rather than backwards?" Etc.