You're the living embodiment of the frog in boiling water. As long as you slowly pile the corruption on top of Hilary, you are happy to just sit in that water.Prove it.
You're the living embodiment of the frog in boiling water. As long as you slowly pile the corruption on top of Hilary, you are happy to just sit in that water.Prove it.
Trump himself has called himself a "player." Baffles me why reporters don't ask him about this more.If he'd had the opportunity, Trump would dominate HRC at the "pay for play" game.
Ever hear of this case?Saints still undetered. It's apparent that he doesn't own a mirror.
Bookmarked. That's good #### hopefully it somehow comes to fruition.Wanted to place this here after adding it to the Trump thread.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/
Hillary worked with Mark Cuban and his experiences with small businesses on Shark Tank guys to come up with this.
I hope you mean that "having the meetings wasn't wrong" when you say "she did nothing wrong" because if you really mean the latter, that's not what the ruling meant at all. Not sure why people keep trying so very hard to blur the line between "right/wrong" and "legal/illegal".I'm glad you brought up the courts, because this is extremely important with regard to these Clinton Foundation stories: the Supreme Court has ruled that access does not equal corruption:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-in-favor-of-former-va-robert-f-mcdonnell-in-corruption-case/2016/06/27/38526a94-3c75-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
This was a unanimous ruling from the court. So what it means for Hillary is that no matter how many meetings she had with donors to the Foundation while she was Secretary of State, she did NOTHING wrong.
I think we all know why people try to blur that line.Not sure why people keep trying so very hard to blur the line between "right/wrong" and "legal/illegal".
Good start, especially because they'll begin work on this:Wanted to place this here after adding it to the Trump thread.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2016/08/23/hillary-clinton-will-make-life-easier-for-small-business-at-every-step-of-the-way/
Hillary worked with Mark Cuban and his experiences with small businesses on Shark Tank guys to come up with this.
Well, she is a Republican, essentially. Fiscal policy, international policy. Just because she's to the left of Cruz socially is what maintains her representing as a Democrat.![]()
Excellent.
These are CONSERVATIVE ideas. Every person here who calls himself a conservative should like these ideas.
Them's fightin' words around these here parts.Well, she is a Republican, essentially. Fiscal policy, international policy. Just because she's to the left of Cruz socially is what maintains her representing as a Democrat.![]()
Excellent.
These are CONSERVATIVE ideas. Every person here who calls himself a conservative should like these ideas.
She wears a D uniform . Can't be true . Trump wears a R , he has to be republican .Well, she is a Republican, essentially. Fiscal policy, international policy. Just because she's to the left of Cruz socially is what maintains her representing as a Democrat.
Tim's pretty much made the same argument. Hell Chris Matthews called her a Rockefeller Republican to her face and she did not blink an eye.Them's fightin' words around these here parts.
Then he's making progress...maybe there's hope yet. The "Hillary is a liberal" hill was one he, squis, TGunz etc were willing to die on at one point in this thread.Tim's pretty much made the same argument. Hell Chris Matthews called her a Rockefeller Republican to her face and she did not blink an eye.Them's fightin' words around these here parts.
The silence is deafening
You know what you're right, I forgot about that. That was important to Tim when Sanders was embarrassing her on her ideology almost every day.Then he's making progress...maybe there's hope yet. The "Hillary is a liberal" hill was one he, squis, TGunz etc were willing to die on at one point in this thread.
I should add that she will appoint left leaning justices, importantly. So even though she personally may be center, those appointments are a key difference.Tim's pretty much made the same argument. Hell Chris Matthews called her a Rockefeller Republican to her face and she did not blink an eye.
The silence is deafening.
<pause>................Well look.....Hillary stands down on Powell.
- Good move.
- Her behavior on the Kimmel appearance was stupid, but this is better.
She'll need to create a new Czar position to keep track of her lies. Probably will be some people available at the foundation if they can afford the pay cut.she lies so casually and naturally.. its almost like an art form with her![]()
1 or 2 true believers here might be able interestedShe'll need to create a new Czar position to keep track of her lies. Probably will be some people available at the foundation if they can afford the pay cut.
Creepy John Podesta has had this role for years...he has done it so well he has earned the title of Czar of Lies...She'll need to create a new Czar position to keep track of her lies. Probably will be some people available at the foundation if they can afford the pay cut.
Fixed for you.Hillary is s conservative in some ways, but she is a progressive in others. For instance she believes that killing Arabs is an extremely important and that the federal government needs to be involved. She believes that the federal government should be heavily involved in incarcerating blacks and financing indentured servants. Those are decidedly not progressive positions.
She is in-between, pragmatic. Her main political philosophy is to do what benefits her donors.
I skimmed and I am giving a tentative like until I read more in depth..I especially like the part where Hillary is a pot bellied pig...For thousands of years we had a norm in Europe of feudalistic states that rested comfortably on in a four legged stool: government, nepotism, dynasty and church.
Dark Ages, followed by centuries of war and still oppressive monarchy.
Our forefathers realized that oppression needed a base, a table of sorts, and determined to saw off the legs of private money, nepotism and church.
Government must stand alone as a tall stilt, to the degree possible.
Despite flaws, our system has managed to exist in its best form with that stilt, and oppression cannot reside atop it without constant wobble.
At the core of why I revile what Hillary represents is because she is the pinnacle of a long-term effort by many to rebuild the table. (It's happened on both "sides," which is why I also revile the two party system; but Clintons have been closest Svengalis to get media and people to go along).
The Right tries with all its might and has been partially successful in re-erecting that church leg.
Hillary supports the raising of the nepotism and dynasty legs to whatever degree she can get away with and will try like hell to pull them as tall and straight as she can get them.
What we have in this country today are all steel cables with cranes hoisting the three legs that should not stand, that must not stand for us to be Americans, to heights they simply are not supposed to be.
The vast majority of us sit below this table in its shadow.
Hillary and crew will laize atop with pot bellies and outstretched legs.
Seems like a mistake to me . Kind of legitimizes them , almost a recruiting tool for potential trump votesHillary will be giving a major speech today in Reno, Nevada, on the alt-right movement, how it is essentially a white supremacist movement, and Donald Trump's close ties to it.
No, it will be like turning on the light and seeing the roaches scatterSeems like a mistake to me . Kind of legitimizes them , almost a recruiting tool for potential trump votes
In Reno? Too close to hell for roaches.No, it will be like turning on the light and seeing the roaches scatter
i suggest she be more careful in her wording than you are.Hillary will be giving a major speech today in Reno, Nevada, on the alt-right movement, how it is essentially a white supremacist movement, and Donald Trump's close ties to it.
1
So you're misguided. That has nothing to do with whether a Presidential candidate is unduly influenced toward favoring a bad deal for the majority of U.S. citizens by the millions of dollars contributed to their campaign by high money interests.Receiving money isn't in and of itself corruption.
BTW, I support TPP and no one has paid me anything.
True, this has always been the best argument for her from day 1.I should add that she will appoint left leaning justices, importantly. So even though she personally may be center, those appointments are a key difference.
Hillary is s conservative in some ways, but she is a progressive in others. For instance she believes that man made climate change is an extremely important issue and that the federal government needs to be involved in trying to solve it. She believes that the federal government should be heavily involved in education, social issues, and questions of race. Those are decidedly not conservative positions.
She is in-between, pragmatic.Like FDRher main political philosophy is todo what worksmaximize her power and personal wealth.
Not an organization- a movement. And Trump's biggest tie to it is the guy he just hired to be in charge of his campaign.The Commish said:Not sure why I am asking, but I am...what are the "close ties" that Trump has to the organization?
I want so bad for her to pick Obama for the SCOTUS. He would be the perfect match and he would be relatively young, we would have him for YEARS.SaintsInDome2006 said:True, this has always been the best argument for her from day 1.
Why? Are you suggesting alt-right is not white supremacist?saintfool said:i suggest she be more careful in her wording than you are.
You really think Obama wants to be tied down like this?? No chance.I want so bad for her to pick Obama for the SCOTUS. He would be the perfect match and he would be relatively young, we would have him for YEARS.
i think a more nuanced answer might be in order from her. painting with such broad brushstrokes doesn't allow for that.Why? Are you suggesting alt-right is not white supremacist?
Absolutely. Obama is a constitutional law professor.You really think Obama wants to be tied down like this?? No chance.
He did his time. He's done. He'll give speeches , start a charity etc.Absolutely. Obama is a constitutional law professor.
Being on SCOTUS is probably the dream of any professor who has taught constitutional law. And what better way to help preserve his legacy? He would be viewed as the actual successor to Thurgood Marshall (Thomas was hyped as that by the right, but his votes have hardly been liberal or progressive and has done little to help AAs or other minorities).Absolutely. Obama is a constitutional law professor.
To be fair, most professors who have taught constitutional law haven't been POTUS. I'm not saying he wouldn't do it, but let's not pretend he isn't a special case.Being on SCOTUS is probably the dream of any professor who has taught constitutional law. And what better way to help preserve his legacy? He would be viewed as the actual successor to Thurgood Marshall (Thomas was hyped as that by the right, but his votes have hardly been liberal or progressive and has done little to help AAs or other minorities).
No, wrong_mx, he wasn't. He was however hyped as filling the minority "black" chair on SCOTUS and it was believed that was the only reason that he was nominated over a Caucasian, which was to give the appearance that Marshall was being replaced. It really fooled nobody at the time, outside of some of the faithful on the right.Yes, Clearance Thomas was hyped as a liberal/progressive. I remember that well.
I'm not sure Hillary wants to go down this rabbit hole does she? Does she want people doing the "guilty by association" shtick with her? I can't imagine she does.Not an organization- a movement. And Trump's biggest tie to it is the guy he just hired to be in charge of his campaign.The Commish said:Not sure why I am asking, but I am...what are the "close ties" that Trump has to the organization?
You have an extremely bizarre and twisted view of history. Nobody was fooled or was there any attempt to. Nobody was hyped as a Marshall-like replacement. There was pressure from the left to appoint an African-American. Thomas's positions were well known. Your spin as always is interesting in a humorous way.No, wrong_mx, he wasn't. He was however hyped as filling the minority "black" chair on SCOTUS and it was believed that was the only reason that he was nominated over a Caucasian, which was to give the appearance that Marshall was being replaced. It really fooled nobody at the time, outside of some of the faithful on the right.