Peach State Scholar
Well-Known Member
And Trump probably broke the law in doing so:
Of course, Trump is never going to be charged with anything at all so it's a moot point.
Random Political comments...
- Thread starter Bliss
- Start date
And Trump probably broke the law in doing so:
Of course, Trump is never going to be charged with anything at all so it's a moot point.
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
A witch hunt? Seriously? Scandals have been following them since at least Arkansas - long before they could blame it on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". :roll:
The Clinton Presidency was nothing but scandal after scandal after scandal.
Do you remember he was impeached by the House, because he lied under oath?
I've never seen a husband and wife team have so many scandals between them.
They are unscrupulous and so corrupt that IF Hillary gets elected, you can expect she and Bill will be selling out America because all of the donors to their "Foundation" will be calling in their favors.
I don't agree with the ranking of most of these, but pay special attention to #s: 7, 8, 9, 14, 18-21. And remember, these are only the top 21. There are so many more.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...llary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/?page=all
How both of them are not in prison is beyond me.
To think that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I should just be expected to vote for the most corrupt politician that did when she is the exact opposite of Bernie, is ridiculous.
archangel
Well-Known Member
For the love of god, The guy lied about a blow job. There is at least one man lying everyday about cheating on his wife.
You would think that people had never heard of JFk or any other president cheating on their wife and lying about it. Like it never happens!!!!!
You can complain about the clintons(I'm not a fan either) but use something that is worth something.
You would think that people had never heard of JFk or any other president cheating on their wife and lying about it. Like it never happens!!!!!
You can complain about the clintons(I'm not a fan either) but use something that is worth something.
Trump or cruz
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
I'm praying it never has to come to that.
If Sanders fails to get the nomination, I pray he runs as an independent.
If that doesn't happen, the only other options I have is to not vote at all or vote republican.
So I pray.
No where to go. Its that way all over
I'm praying it never has to come to that.
If Sanders fails to get the nomination, I pray he runs as an independent.
If that doesn't happen, the only other options I have is to not vote at all or vote republican.
So I pray.
Lol
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
Pretty much.
The way I see it, the 4 main candidates left (I'm not including Kasich who doesn't have a chance at the nomination) are in a giant square and each corner there is a candidate.
There isn't anyone in the middle or even close to the middle and I don't like that.
Beasty
Well-Known Member
I feel you on that, but we are approaching the point of damage control. The best decision in that regard is to vote for Hillary. I don't like her but I dislike the ignorance and bigotry that Trump thrives off of even more.
I dislike the type of people that are pulling for Trump much more than I dislike him. They are what I really see when Trump is center stage.
The people that want better for the country, like the people who voted for Bernie is what I see when I see Hillary. She's all we have for now.
Cherok33
Well-Known Member
The lesser of the evils. Trump reminds me of Carpathia... So many things happening in this world it really makes you think.
Beasty
Well-Known Member
LOL. Results are all that matter. We should have a collection for the president based on performance. I have a Franklin note for Michelle or anyone else that wants to give Obama a blow job.
RicardoCooper
Well-Known Member
That's the way I feel about Bernie
Beasty
Well-Known Member
Why?
RicardoCooper
Well-Known Member
Bernie supporters are cultists and cyberbullies. Ask any of his supporters about specifics and they go into attack mode. Basic stuff like how will he make consensus if elected if he has never done it in over 30 years. Why as a "progressive" did he vote against the Brady Bill five times. Why did he not vote until age 40, then only for himself, yet he wants your vote. Why Bernie and Hillary voted the same in the Senate 93% of the time yet Hillary is the one who's "corrupt." I read more racist and misogynist stuff from Bernie-bots than right-wingers
All they know is they hate Hillary, just read the comments in this thread. He himself is the Trump of the far left, pandering to angry whites. Hillary is beating Bernie in the popular vote by 2.5 million not counting her delegate lead so clearly it's not just me
I will get neg rep for this post, calling it now
orejon4
Well-Known Member
*Rep added, but not the negative kind, lol*
I prefer Bernie over Hillary, but I think he's far too conservative as well. In my opinion, he's just a standard New Deal Democrat - nothing revolutionary there. It is a measure of how far rightward the DLC have taken the Dems since Dick Gephardt that Sanders seems to voters like some sort of firebrand. I agree that the extreme anti-Hillary vitriol of some of his supporters makes them seem irrational and misogynistic. I've even quit participating in an online discussion and organizing group because of it.
I'll probably be voting for Jill Stein though, because after working in government for 23 years, there's only so much "lesser of two evils" tripe I can stomach.
RicardoCooper
Well-Known Member
Try stepping to some woman with the fact that you didn't have a job until you were 40 and she'd laugh in your face. Yet somehow this is now presidential material. Uh ok. But hey feel the Bern
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
Hillary is NEVER the better option.
How can people justify voting for that woman when things like this are an absolute certainty if she becomes president (I'll copy the first part of this article for easy reading here instead of clicking on the link:
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 press conferences 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 in completed salesto 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 Qatar all 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.
Taken from: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
You cannot possibly read that and tell me she wouldn't sell this country to the highest Clinton "Foundation" donor.
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
[FONT="]The merger of both American political parties on war is actually the foundation for fascism. When a Democrat appeals to neoconservatives, and legitimizes Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy, then we’ve altered our democracy forever.[/FONT]
1. Hillary Clinton will merge Democrats and Republicans into one party when to comes to foreign policy and war.
America’s president can unilaterally wage war and I don’t trust any president, Democrat or Republican, advised by both Henry Kissinger and the same neoconservatives who advised Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Neocons actually hate Trump, which says a lot about Clinton.
When the U.S. eventually has only one choice on war (and liberals are now hawks), we’ll become a fascist nation. I explained on MSNBC last year that Republicans have always wanted another major ground war, and now they might get their wish with Hillary Clinton.
All of this taken from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g...ers-clinton-democratic-nominee_b_9514188.html
1. Hillary Clinton will merge Democrats and Republicans into one party when to comes to foreign policy and war.
America’s president can unilaterally wage war and I don’t trust any president, Democrat or Republican, advised by both Henry Kissinger and the same neoconservatives who advised Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Neocons actually hate Trump, which says a lot about Clinton.
When the U.S. eventually has only one choice on war (and liberals are now hawks), we’ll become a fascist nation. I explained on MSNBC last year that Republicans have always wanted another major ground war, and now they might get their wish with Hillary Clinton.
All of this taken from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-g...ers-clinton-democratic-nominee_b_9514188.html
The Dark King
Well-Known Member
Well here's why I think most Bernie supporters are for him over Hilary. People are so tired of bought and paid for politicians. He can at least show you that his campaign money isn't coming from the same corporations that would be against anything that's in support of the people these politicians represent.
And I honestly don't know what sites (links please) you're going on but the average Bernie supporter is a progressive who wants to see progress in being able to afford education, progress in inequality, progress in healthcare. They are rightly angry and fearful of having another president who panders to the rich over them. I've seen a lot of Bernie's plans to implement some of his policies which include taxing the rich a bit more and most importantly shrinking that insanely bloated military budget would easily pay for what he proposes. Now I am well aware that a president can't do any of this on his own but what I want to see is this situation will motivate people to actually vote for congress that has their interest at heart.
Bookworm616
Well-Known Member
Sanders wants food companies to be required to label their products that contain GMOs.
Clinton is in bed with Monsanto.
Sanders is against the TPP and NAFTA.
Clinton is for them (though she has since changed her stance on NAFTA, because you know, that's what you do when you want votes - change your stance on something unpopular).
Just more reasons why Hillary is not a better candidate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/hillary-vs-bernie-on-fran_b_7638846.html
Clinton is in bed with Monsanto.
Sanders is against the TPP and NAFTA.
Clinton is for them (though she has since changed her stance on NAFTA, because you know, that's what you do when you want votes - change your stance on something unpopular).
Just more reasons why Hillary is not a better candidate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/hillary-vs-bernie-on-fran_b_7638846.html