Moderators: $iljanus, LawBeefaroni
Appears not to be true.In all her time as a political candidate, Hillary Clinton has never gone up in the polls in any race she's been in.
He never said. Look for Warren Obama TPP and you're likely to find the interviews. If I have time I will try to find it/them.Defiant wrote:.... Warren.
What agenda does Obama claim her to have?
It’s an axiom of Washington politics in the age of Citizens United and Super PACs that corporations and the very rich can channel almost unlimited amounts of money to candidates for high office to pave the way for later favors. According to the public service website Open Secrets, in the 2016 campaign, as of October, in addition to direct campaign contributions, Jeb Bush had at his disposal $103 million in “outside money”—groups such as PACs and Super PACs and so called “dark money” organizations that work on behalf of a particular candidate. Ted Cruz had $38 million in such funds, Marco Rubio $17 million, and Chris Christie $14 million.
Yet few have been as adept at exploiting this big-money politics as Bill and Hillary Clinton. In the 2016 campaign, as of October, Hillary Clinton had raised $20 million in “outside” money, on top of $77 million in direct campaign contributions—the highest in direct contributions of any candidate at the time. But she and her husband have other links to big donors, and they go back much further than the current election cycle. What stands out about what I will call the Clinton System is the scale and complexity of the connections involved, the length of time they have been in operation, the presence of former president Bill Clinton alongside Hillary as an equal partner in the enterprise, and the sheer magnitude of the funds involved.
Scale and complexity arise from the multiple channels that link Clinton donors to the Clintons: there is the stream of six-figure lecture fees paid to Bill and Hillary Clinton, mostly from large corporations and banks, which have earned them more than $125 million in the fifteen years since Bill Clinton left office in 2001. There are the direct payments to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns, including for the Senate in 2000 and for the presidency in 2008 and now in 2016, which had reached a total of $712.4 million as of September 30, 2015, the most recent figures compiled by Open Secrets. Four of the top five sources of these funds are major banks: Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley. The Clinton campaign meanwhile has set a goal of raising $1 billion for her Super PAC for the 2016 election.
Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
I think it's the fact that, if Clinton wins, the GOP will have to face that either 1. It got beaten by a girl or 2. It got beaten by a candidate that took advantage of Citizens United. The latter is an issue they can do something about for the next election.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
Blaming it on CU is just stupid. Look at all the money Bush has. Lots of money helps win elections, however it doesn't win them. Just ask Romney.raydude wrote:I think it's the fact that, if Clinton wins, the GOP will have to face that either 1. It got beaten by a girl or 2. It got beaten by a candidate that took advantage of Citizens United. The latter is an issue they can do something about for the next election.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
So, if the Democrats win the election and the Republicans decide they want to revisit CU, we can hold hands and chant "Republicans are stupid, CU has nothing to do with it" ? And who says politics is divisive?Rip wrote:Blaming it on CU is just stupid. Look at all the money Bush has. Lots of money helps win elections, however it doesn't win them. Just ask Romney.raydude wrote:I think it's the fact that, if Clinton wins, the GOP will have to face that either 1. It got beaten by a girl or 2. It got beaten by a candidate that took advantage of Citizens United. The latter is an issue they can do something about for the next election.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
Won't happen. Even if they lose they won't want to revisit CU.raydude wrote:So, if the Democrats win the election and the Republicans decide they want to revisit CU, we can hold hands and chant "Republicans are stupid, CU has nothing to do with it" ? And who says politics is divisive?Rip wrote:Blaming it on CU is just stupid. Look at all the money Bush has. Lots of money helps win elections, however it doesn't win them. Just ask Romney.raydude wrote:I think it's the fact that, if Clinton wins, the GOP will have to face that either 1. It got beaten by a girl or 2. It got beaten by a candidate that took advantage of Citizens United. The latter is an issue they can do something about for the next election.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
Not at all. I'm merely suggesting that I will repost this exchange if what I suggest would happen, happens. In which case we'll be the bestest of buddies.Rip wrote:Won't happen. Even if they lose they won't want to revisit CU.raydude wrote:So, if the Democrats win the election and the Republicans decide they want to revisit CU, we can hold hands and chant "Republicans are stupid, CU has nothing to do with it" ? And who says politics is divisive?Rip wrote:Blaming it on CU is just stupid. Look at all the money Bush has. Lots of money helps win elections, however it doesn't win them. Just ask Romney.raydude wrote:I think it's the fact that, if Clinton wins, the GOP will have to face that either 1. It got beaten by a girl or 2. It got beaten by a candidate that took advantage of Citizens United. The latter is an issue they can do something about for the next election.Pyperkub wrote:Clinton and bipartisan in the same sentence? You have far more faith than I in the GOP with Hillary as President.Zarathud wrote:Perhaps it will take the Clintons beating the GOP at its own fundraising game to get a bipartisan consensus on limiting money in politics.
Are you suggesting that if the Republicans lose the Democrats will suddenly be CU supporters?
Sex, guns, and rock-n-roll. Needs drugs. (I didn't click it either so I withdraw this post if drugs are present.)ImLawBoy wrote:I have no interest in clicking on the link, but the url itself is glorious.
Sally Miller looked on in amusement as the man who would become the 42nd President of the United States slipped into her own frilly black nightgown.
The former Miss Arkansas has never forgotten how her younger lover proceeded to dance around the bedroom, serenading her with his saxophone and reducing her to a fit of giggles.
This playful scene was typical of the laughter-filled nights that ex-beauty queen Miller enjoyed with Bill Clinton during their 1983 affair, she tells Daily Mail Online in an exclusive interview.
The married Governor of Arkansas would frequently adopt the role of entertainer-in-chief to impress his glamorous older woman, a one-time Miss America finalist.
But while his attempts at lovemaking were largely forgettable, Clinton would rarely disappoint when it came to divulging intimate and potentially damaging secrets about his wife Hillary.
'Let's just get down to the facts,' she adds. 'Firstly, Bill didn't mind telling me that Hillary doesn't like sex.
'I take him at his word and he told me she liked females more than men. She was the child of a more progressive community. She was exposed to all the liberals, she was a flower child.
'Hillary does drugs too, that's the only time that she would entertain the idea - again, this is what Bill told me.
'While we were intimately involved he would say things like "gosh you need to come over and teach Hillary a few things".
'He said she probably wouldn't take to that idea much.
Their clandestine meetings typically included Bill goofing around and playing his sax while Miller, a trained singer and musician, accompanied him on her piano.
He would sometimes unwind by smoking a marijuana cigarette. Miller claims that she saw Clinton produce a pouch of white powder on several occasions and snort lines off her coffee table.
'I don't do drugs and I don't smoke. But if you come into my house and say "gosh I've had a bad day" I wouldn't know how to stop you,' said Miller.
'Bill is not the most handsome man. But he makes you feel like your breasts are the right size, your legs are the perfect length, you have an incredible body and on top of all that you're beautiful. There are not many men that can make a woman feel that way.
'Do I make it a point to have affairs with married men, no. But most everyone in Arkansas assumed that their marriage was a business arrangement.
'Bill never sounded like he was in love or locked into a loyal arrangement.'
I don't know that I care as much as find it interesting and enlightening.Jeff V wrote:And we care about this....why? Or are we just supposed to not care about Republican private lives?
Sure, why not? It was obviously so very devastating to his career last time we spent millions to do so.ImLawBoy wrote:You're dead wrong, Jeff. Based on this stunning new information, I really think we should impeach Bill Clinton again.
Absodamnedlutely! And I'm not even wealthy.Kraken wrote:Between Clinton and Sanders it's not how much of his money they're going to take but how they're going to spend it. Neither Clinton nor Trump are going to spend his money constructively, so he'd rather pay less and take his chances with the crazy.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary ... t_the_gop/In one major poll, Bernie Sanders is now leading Hillary Clinton nationally. In most others, he’s not far behind from the former Secretary of State. Vermont’s Senator already has an “edge over Clinton in matchups with GOP opponents,” dispelling Clinton’s electability myth. In an average of national polls, Bernie Sanders is less than eight points from Hillary Clinton, after being over 50 points behind in 2015. In addition, there’s only one person capable of challenging a Republican in 2016 without James Comey declaring national security was jeopardized by a private server.
Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate capable of winning the White House in 2016. Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party. In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats, and certainly not the person capable of ensuring liberal Supreme Court nominees and President Obama’s legacy.
Holy crap, I can't recall the last time this happened with any other candidate!Rip wrote: and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.
A sentence fragment without the rest of the sentence is meaningless.hepcat wrote:Holy crap, I can't recall the last time this happened with any other candidate!Rip wrote: and the genuine contempt of the rival political party.
...oh wait...an hour ago.
Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors,
I think none of them meet the other characteristics mentioned.hepcat wrote:You seriously think the other candidates, even within their own party, aren't contemptuous of their rivals?
Which would probably explain why I only quoted the part about contempt.Rip wrote:I think none of them meet the other characteristics mentioned.hepcat wrote:You seriously think the other candidates, even within their own party, aren't contemptuous of their rivals?
Oh boy, he's back to referring to everyone as "you guys" again! I love it when he does that.Regardless it isn't my opinion it is that of a leftwing rag you guys love to refer to.
Which is why I said sentence fragments taken out of context have no meaning.hepcat wrote:Which would probably explain why I only quoted the part about contempt.Rip wrote:I think none of them meet the other characteristics mentioned.hepcat wrote:You seriously think the other candidates, even within their own party, aren't contemptuous of their rivals?
Oh boy, he's back to referring to everyone as "you guys" again! I love it when he does that.Regardless it isn't my opinion it is that of a leftwing rag you guys love to refer to.
We need to remember to lump him in with hardcore right wing extremists more often.
Regardless it isn't my opinion it is that of a leftwing rag you guys love to refer to.
Don't know what to say. It isn't my opinion, but their basis for it is accurate. I just still believe that Hill has a better chance than Bern. Thus my delight that many liberals are beginning to feel otherwise. I'm certainly encouraging every dem I know to vote for the bern.hepcat wrote:Then we've been taking you out of context for the last 10 years, my friend.
p.s. This may be my favorite quote from you for this week:
Regardless it isn't my opinion it is that of a leftwing rag you guys love to refer to.
hepcat wrote:Regardless it isn't my opinion it is that of a leftwing rag you guys love to refer to.
But you don't agree with it, got it.Rip wrote: Don't know what to say. It isn't my opinion, but their basis for it is accurate.
