Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (16 Viewers)

[Slapdash]

Saints please list the marquee accomplishments of the last 5 Secretaries of State. Actually you can just choose one and list his or her major accomplishment.

Why, are they running for president ?

 

[TheAristocrat]

I love how the political fecal market swings from one media darling to another without those candidates exposed to any sort of criticism. UNTIL IT'S UNPOPULAR!!one!devil:FD:!#!L

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Obama has spied well and Hillary would be great, if not better at lying. Please stop poking me with sharp things.

 

[Soonerman]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

For the invasion, against the surge, for removing the residual force.

You can't get much better than that.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

 

[Soonerman]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

 

[Soonerman]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

The two aren't even close to mutually exclusive.

 

[FlapJacks]

I love how the political fecal market swings from one media darling to another without those candidates exposed to any sort of criticism. UNTIL IT'S UNPOPULAR!!one!devil:FD:!#!L

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Obama has spied well and Hillary would be great, if not better at lying. Please stop poking me with sharp things.

In the lying trade, She has the audacity to say anything, but not the skill to pull it off. Look at how quickly her the YouTube fiction over Benghazi fell apart....

 

[DocHolliday]

I love how the political fecal market swings from one media darling to another without those candidates exposed to any sort of criticism. UNTIL IT'S UNPOPULAR!!one!devil:FD:!#!L

Excuse me, I'm sorry. Obama has spied well and Hillary would be great, if not better at lying. Please stop poking me with sharp things.

In the lying trade, She has the audacity to say anything, but not the skill to pull it off. Look at how quickly her the YouTube fiction over Benghazi fell apart....

And that is one of the big differences between Hillary and Obama. While they both lie, deny and say anything even with the truth is obvious, Obama is much better at being liked. None of his lies or mistakes stick. Hillary gets away with things but loses support in the process. She is avoiding the media and reporters as much as possible in order to keep as much support as possible before the election. The election cannot come soon enough for her.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

The two aren't even close to mutually exclusive.

OK. Hillary was incompetent on Iraq, vote GOP.

 

[The Commish]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

Not sure I follow this. One can be extremely competent climbing a ladder and extremely incompetent once they get to the position they desire. As framed in this discussion, they're mutually exclusive.

 

[fantasycurse42]

This ##### is all over my neighborhood. I want her old ### out of here.

 

[Slapdash]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

Not sure I follow this. One can be extremely competent climbing a ladder and extremely incompetent once they get to the position they desire. As framed in this discussion, they're mutually exclusive.

Not only that, climbing the ladder doesn't indicate competency as much as it indicates good politics.

 

[Hang 10]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

The two aren't even close to mutually exclusive.

OK. Hillary was incompetent on Iraq, vote GOP.

Don't forget Libya too.

 

[Rove!]

On Iraq, she was Biden-Level 10 incompetent.

There's a lot of things you can criticize about Hillary. Not sure incompetence is one.

Odds are, had she just flipped a coin on the three decisions above, she would have done better.

Oh sure. But good luck selling incompetence after a decade of painting her as a power hungry opportunist driven purely by personal ambition.

Not sure I follow this. One can be extremely competent climbing a ladder and extremely incompetent once they get to the position they desire. As framed in this discussion, they're mutually exclusive.

Not only that, climbing the ladder doesn't indicate competency as much as it indicates good politics.

Politically, she married well....

 

[timschochet]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

 

[The Commish]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

 

[timschochet]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Pretty long article here so I won't past the whole thing but the first few paragraphs outlines things quite well:

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Departmenthttp://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed$900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase incompleted sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatarall donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

 

[timschochet]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

 

[Hang 10]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

People accuse you of this because you troll so often.

 

[The Commish]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

Ok.....this still needs work. A lot of work. Better??

Has anyone ever put up a list of accomplishments as SoS comparing the last 5-7 SoS and what they actually were a significant part of (accomplished) while in that position? I know someone challenged someone else (can't remember who, but it really doesn't matter) to find a SoS who accomplished more than Hillary. That was easily answered, but I'm sort of interested in a more extensive comparison but I admit I'm too lazy to do the work myself.

 

[The Commish]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

It's bogus because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[timschochet]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

 

[timschochet]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

People accuse you of this because you troll so often.

So now I'm trolling a thread that I started which is supposed to be a serious discussion of Hillary and her political positions but which has instead become inundated with the same old accusations and conspiracy crap that nobody outside of the Internet believes or cares about?

 

[Hang 10]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

 

[The Commish]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

People accuse you of this because you troll so often.

So now I'm trolling a thread that I started which is supposed to be a serious discussion of Hillary and her political positions but which has instead become inundated with the same old accusations and conspiracy crap that nobody outside of the Internet believes or cares about?

I love that you're complaining about threads being derailed.

 

[timschochet]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

No there isn't.

 

[Hang 10]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

No there isn't.

 

[The Commish]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

Purely a coincidence of course. There is zero reason to believe otherwise, well other than the history of the world, but other than that, nothing to see here.

 

[Slapdash]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

No there isn't.

You're a moron

 

[timschochet]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

This shtick still needs work.

You need to stop accusing me of this. If what I wrote appears to need "work", that's because it's a genuine opinion.

People accuse you of this because you troll so often.

So now I'm trolling a thread that I started which is supposed to be a serious discussion of Hillary and her political positions but which has instead become inundated with the same old accusations and conspiracy crap that nobody outside of the Internet believes or cares about?

I love that you're complaining about threads being derailed.

Good. Let's all work together to keep it from happening here.

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

 

[Hang 10]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

Purely a coincidence of course. There is zero reason to believe otherwise, well other than the history of the world, but other than that, nothing to see here.

Yeah and how does she benefit from 11 million dollars in donations to a charity that is run by her family and has her name on it? I can't see the connection.

 

[Slapdash]

What a lot of lemmings some of you are repeating this tired nonsense. Hillary was an extremely competent S o S, just as she has been extremely competent in almost all of her positions in life. Her resume is extraordinary, by far the most qualified Presidential candidate in our lifetimes.

 

[The Commish]

I can't get passed the character issues to even begin discussion the "political positions". Though, if I could get passed the character issues, I'd then have to figure out what day it was and who she was talking to in order to figure out what her "political positions" were that second. Then I'd have to face the reality that once I figured out what her "political positions" were in that second, they'd no longer be her "political positions" as she'd have probably moved on to a new group and adjusted accordingly.

I guess, in short, I don't like that her "political positions" (speaking in a VERY vague way) are ever changing and virtually impossible to keep up with..like that little ball the broom riders in the Harry Potter movies are always chasing around.

 

[urbanhack]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

You're embarrassing yourself. Saudi Arabia donate 10 MILLION dollars to the foundation, then Boeing donates almost a million dollars 2 months before the state department approves a deal that lands them a 29 billion dollar contract with the Saudis and there's nothing to see there?

No there isn't.

wow...you are blinded by Hillary's pant suits.

 

[Slapdash]

I can't get passed the character issues to even begin discussion the "political positions". Though, if I could get passed the character issues, I'd then have to figure out what day it was and who she was talking to in order to figure out what her "political positions" were that second. Then I'd have to face the reality that once I figured out what her "political positions" were in that second, they'd no longer be her "political positions" as she'd have probably moved on to a new group and adjusted accordingly.

I guess, in short, I don't like that her "political positions" (speaking in a VERY vague way) are ever changing and virtually impossible to keep up with..like that little ball the broom riders in the Harry Potter movies are always chasing around.

The character issues show that she is for sale, making any stated political positions less than credible.

 

[Hang 10]

I can't get passed the character issues to even begin discussion the "political positions". Though, if I could get passed the character issues, I'd then have to figure out what day it was and who she was talking to in order to figure out what her "political positions" were that second. Then I'd have to face the reality that once I figured out what her "political positions" were in that second, they'd no longer be her "political positions" as she'd have probably moved on to a new group and adjusted accordingly.

I guess, in short, I don't like that her "political positions" (speaking in a VERY vague way) are ever changing and virtually impossible to keep up with..like that little ball the broom riders in the Harry Potter movies are always chasing around.

The character issues show that she is for sale, making any stated political positions less than credible.

Her only real position is being all things for all people for her own personal gain.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

For starters, they're inauthentic.

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

Good thing I'm not a progressive then. And from many of your previous posts I'm guessing you're not either. But I'm sure they appreciate you looking after their best interests.

 

[The Commish]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

Plenty of legit answers. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't valid. Personally, I don't see a productive reason to discuss policy issues if you can't beyond character issues. Character is what these "political positions" are typically built on.

 

[squistion]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

Good thing I'm not a progressive then. And from many of your previous posts I'm guessing you're not either. But I'm sure they appreciate you looking after their best interests.

Hilarious. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Only a conservative could point to reasons progressives shouldn't vote for Hillary without coming up with one of his own.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

She wants to amend the 1st Amendment. Which, to me, is nuts, horrible, dangerous. I respect the progressives in all their fervor, but what needs to be remembered is that Hillary (who btw IMO is not a progressive in any way, shape or form) H.A.T.E.S. a free press. She has contempt for it. -- C/U the case was about a political group that made a movie about Hillary and wanted to release near election time (which btw they were prevented from doing. Hillary would like to silence the press and free speech about her personally but also I have no doubt she would like to grant future dear leaders that power as well.

 

[squistion]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

She wants to amend the 1st Amendment. Which, to me, is nuts, horrible, dangerous. I respect the progressives in all their fervor, but what needs to be remembered is that Hillary (who btw IMO is not a progressive in any way, shape or form) H.A.T.E.S. a free press. She has contempt for it. -- C/U the case was about a political group that made a movie about Hillary and wanted to release near election time (which btw they were prevented from doing. Hillary would like to silence the press and free speech about her personally but also I have no doubt she would like to grant future dear leaders that power as well.

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

Good thing I'm not a progressive then. And from many of your previous posts I'm guessing you're not either. But I'm sure they appreciate you looking after their best interests.

Hilarious. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Only a conservative could point to reasons progressives shouldn't vote for Hillary without coming up with one of his own.

It is hilarious...you both took the stinky bait.

 

[The Commish]

Is there an "official" list of positions anywhere? Genuine question....can't find one. All the various lists tend to contradict one another. Funny thing is, there's a lot of populist sorts of concepts in all those lists. That can't make you feel good Tim.