Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[russ1945]

^^^^^from the above:

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”
It hasn’t.

 

[akphidelt]

Uh oh!! Russ and Dave are connecting their imaginary dots again!

 

[vitterd]

Uh oh!! Russ and Dave are connecting their imaginary dots again!

Lmao. It's like watching two retards play checkers with potato chips.

 

[ScottL]

Lmao. It's like watching two retards play checkers with potato chips.

Yeah but if you smash the potato chips the whole board becomes littered with Clinton crumbs

 

[vitterd]

Yeah but if you smash the potato chips the whole board becomes littered with Clinton crumbs

Lol. I am enjoying watching these guys trip over each other while they post duplicate articles. If the right wing machine would put this kind of effort into running a national campaign the right way..they could win but instead they spend all their resources getting the loony base all riled up with articles filled with lies that nobody cares about.

 

[ScottL]

Lol. I am enjoying watching these guys trip over each other while they post duplicate articles. If the right wing machine would put this kind of effort into running a national campaign the right way..they could win but instead they spend all their resources getting the loony base all riled up with articles filled with lies that nobody cares about.

Election politics are crazy Vit. This is early. First we have to see if all the other dems step aside for her. Because if they don't, and one of her dem foes gains traction they will use a lot of this same material against her. A lot of people just plain can't stand her. Personally I think she's full of shit and a power hungry, self-serving bitch. That's just how my gut reacts to her. But beware, it may not be the Right that takes her down. I'd make her a slight favorite to win the White House but long way to go here.

 

[russ1945]

Election politics are crazy Vit. This is early. First we have to see if all the other dems step aside for her. Because if they don't, and one of her dem foes gains traction they will use a lot of this same material against her. A lot of people just plain can't stand her. Personally I think she's full of shit and a power hungry, self-serving bitch. That's just how my gut reacts to her. But beware, it may not be the Right that takes her down. I'd make her a slight favorite to win the White House but long way to go here.

I agree she is self-destructing. Add in the fact that Bill probably does not want her to win because of all the focus it will put on him and his foundation. This thread has nothing to do with how the Right runs a campaign. At this point all they have to do is sit back and watch Hillary self-destruct and the Left struggle to justify what she has done. Scott your gut is spot on. Vit doesn't get it and he never will.

 

[Acebb]

By the way, the Clinton foundation has fundraising operations in Sweden and the UK.

Clinton Foundation's Swedish operation was registered while Hillary was Secretary of State (2010).

I'm sure this is all above board and transparent.

 

[vitterd]

Election politics are crazy Vit. This is early. First we have to see if all the other dems step aside for her. Because if they don't, and one of her dem foes gains traction they will use a lot of this same material against her. A lot of people just plain can't stand her. Personally I think she's full of shit and a power hungry, self-serving bitch. That's just how my gut reacts to her. But beware, it may not be the Right that takes her down. I'd make her a slight favorite to win the White House but long way to go here.

We will see how it plays out but all the nonsense in this thread is only important to those already voting against Hillary. That's what people like Russ, joe and Dave can't grasp.....most voters realize it's mostly lies and half truths so they don't even consider it.

Think about out what we're dealing with on the far right of your party....a guy just said that bill doesn't want Hillary to win because it will put light on their foundation. I mean people this out of touch shouldnt be allowed out of the house.

The republicans are gonna need a strong ticket to beat her. One that includes Rubio....if not it will be a real uphill battle for them....despite the crazy type articles in this thread.

 

[Acebb]

but instead they spend all their resources getting the loony base all riled up with articles filled with lies that nobody cares about.

ointer:

You have the problem of being unable to name any actual lies. Of course when you are totally & completely unable to engage any facts presented to you, you go with "crazy articles" and "lies." Probably because you have great reading comprehension and a masters degree.

Note: this idiot is posting during the game he was all proud he was going to leave and go watch.

 

[vitterd]

Leaving to watch? Some of us have technology to post from anywhere. The score is 58-47. See?

Im timing out. Lol.

 

[Acebb]

Leaving to watch?

Yeah, illiterate

Now...I'm gonna go watch games that I bet.

Now reply that I don't post picks since you've been caught in another lie.

 

[Acebb]

...most voters realize it's mostly lies and half truths so they don't even consider it.

Poll #1 of Battle Ground States: Across the 15 states surveyed, Hillary Clinton loses against a generic Republican nominee by one point. Moreover, contrary to a great deal of conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton does not have a commanding lead among women in the battleground states that will decide the next election.

Poll #2: American voters say 54 - 38 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, a lower score than top Republicans.

You literally are just making shit up. You need to tell yourself happy bullshit and so you will do that.

 

[vitterd]

Yeah, illiterate



Now reply that I don't post picks since you've been caught in another lie.

so saying I'm gonna go watch the games means i gotta leave my house? Lol, where does rx find these people? Go spend your night looking for guessers posts of my pm's that don't exist.

You need help. Now, I'm gonna go watch the game...in my living room. How's that? You are very abnormal

 

[Acebb]

so saying I'm gonna go watch the games means i gotta leave my house? l

Nobody said 'leave your house' illiterate.

You, nobody else, you, used the words "gonna go" You understand that means leave, right? And "leave" in the context of the discussion would mean leave the forum. How fucking dumb are you, exactly?

LOL

Now reply that I am afraid to post picks here since you engaged in yet another dumb fuck lie.

LOL

 

[Acebb]

so saying I'm gonna go watch the games means i gotta leave my house? Lol, where does rx find these people?

It is so funny that you abjectly refuse to even acknowledge your own words. Nobody typed "leave the house"

You simply are a dumb fucking liar who has to announce "I'm gonna go" anytime you might not be browsing this forum. You got caught and now are responding to a strawman. Where does the RX find someone who is all proud he (allegedly) placed a wager and is "leaving" only to come back and make more dipshit posts?

LOL

 

[ScottL]

We will see how it plays out but all the nonsense in this thread is only important to those already voting against Hillary.

It reminds me of when you write a post calling someone dumb, and then another poster on your side chimes in and says, "He's also stupid." LMAO

 

[vitterd]

Nobody said 'leave your house' illiterate.

You, nobody else, you, used the words "gonna go" You understand that means leave, right? And "leave" in the context of the discussion would mean leave the forum. How fucking dumb are you, exactly?

LOL

Now reply that I am afraid to post picks here since you engaged in yet another dumb fuck lie.

LOL

i did leave. Then came back in 2nd half of the game. So weird how you hang on my every word and then try to make up a story of what they mean. You are stalker type.

Speaking of pm's. I have several that say you are in therapy and I should stop pounding on you because you have actual mental problems. You scare people with your mental illness.

 

[Coldweather]

I believe the Clinton Foundation took the money to feed the poor people around the world, so

they don't get sick, and die, and then they be happy again after they eat!

 

[russ1945]

Oh my, Hillary is disconnecting dots lol:


Politics
[h=1]How Hillary Clinton is running against parts of her husband’s legacy[/h]

Hillary Rodham Clinton, shown here with former president Bill Clinton in March, is increasingly distancing herself from elements of her husband’s 1990s presidency. (Matt York/Associated Press)
By Anne Gearan and Philip Rucker April 29 at 7:06 PM
Hillary Rodham Clinton isn’t just running against Republicans. She’s also running against parts of her husband’s legacy.
On issues large and small, the Democratic presidential contender is increasingly distancing herself from — or even opposing — key policies pushed by Bill Clinton while he was in the White House, from her recent skepticism on free-trade pacts to her full embrace of gay rights.
The starkest example yet came Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton delivered an impassioned address condemning the “era of incarceration” ushered in during the 1990s in the wake of her husband’s 1994 crime bill — though she never mentioned him or the legislation by name.
“We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance,” Clinton told an audience at Columbia University in New York, making references to unrest in Baltimore and elsewhere and elsewhere over actions by police. “And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”
The contrasts between some of Clinton’s positions and those of her husband from 20 years ago show the extent to which Democrats, and the country as a whole, have shifted to the left on a number of key issues. Indeed, Bill Clinton now says that some of his incarceration policies went too far and that he regrets backing a federal law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Hillary Clinton: 'Violence has to stop' in Baltimore(2:42)



Speaking at Columbia University on April 29, 2015, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton commented on the unrest in Baltimore and a need for reform in the U.S. justice system. (Columbia University)

But the differences also illustrate the dicey challenges that Hillary Clinton will face in attempting to both embrace and keep separate from the 42nd president, who remains personally popular but whose 1990s positions on some issues, particularly in the social arena, now feel out of date.
[Hillary Clinton goes all-in on gay marriage: ‘Love Must Win’]
Bill Clinton won two elections running as a centrist Democrat waging open war with his party’s left flank. Hillary Clinton now hopes to win the White House by running to the left, capturing a wave from the young, liberal-
leaning coalition that twice propelled President Obama to victory.
The candidate has also staked out positions to the left of her husband’s administration on core women’s issues, such as equal pay and paid maternity leave, as she seeks to become the nation’s first female president.
“Twenty years is a long time,” said Robert Reich, a leading liberal who served as labor secretary in the Clinton administration. “I don’t think she feels in any way bound by policies of a different administration two decades ago, even though she is married to the person who initiated those policies. I think we’ll see Hillary Clinton parting ways with the Bill Clinton administration on a number of matters.”
Clinton’s nascent campaign — which formally began a bit more than two weeks ago — sought to play down differences between the current candidate and the former president.
Spokesman Jesse Ferguson wrote in a tweet that Hillary Clinton’s positions on Internet policy are also likely to be different — not because her husband was wrong, but because “times change.”

The Clintons, right, wave to the media as their daughter, Chelsea, and son-in law, Marc Mezvinsky, pose for photographers with their newborn baby, Charlotte. (William Regan/Associated Press)
In a statement to The Washington Post, the campaign said, “This campaign will be about Hillary Clinton’s vision for the next
20 years, not re-litigating policies from 20 years ago.”
Republican National Committee spokeswoman Allison Moore said Clinton was being opportunistic: “As Hillary Clinton continues to flip-flop on the issues, she’s only further proving that she’ll say anything to benefit herself politically, which is why the majority of American people find her to be untrustworthy.”
Some in the Republican camp have their own problems reckoning with family legacies, however. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush is struggling to calibrate the proper distance from his father and brother as he mulls a 2016 presidential campaign, while Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, already in the race, is keeping his eccentric father, former congressman Ron Paul, at arm’s length.
The 1994 crime bill ushered into law by Bill Clinton came in the wake of the crack cocaine epidemic, building on anti-drug policies implemented during the Ronald Reagan years. The law enacted a broad range of tough-on-crime policies, including three-strikes-and-you’re-out requirements that helped fuel a surge in incarceration.
[In bid to get noticed, O’Malley hits Clinton from the left]
Many politicians in both parties have now concluded that at least some of those policies were a mistake.
In her New York speech, Hillary Clinton said measures that emphasized arrests and convictions for relatively minor offenses have failed the country, leading to overcrowded prisons and too many black men “missing” from
communities.
In her most specific policy proposals so far, Clinton also endorsed body cameras for police nationwide and said it is time for an overhaul of policing and prison strategies.
“Not only as a mother and grandmother, but as a citizen, as a human being, my heart breaks for these young men and their families,” she said. “We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”
Bill Clinton has also had a change of heart. In a foreword to a new book of essays from the Brennan Center for Justice, he wrote that “we have overshot the mark.”
“We acted to address a genuine national crisis,” he continued. “But much has changed since then. It’s time to take a clear-eyed look at what worked, what didn’t, and what produced unintended, long-lasting consequences.”
Gay rights is another major area where Hillary Clinton has set out very different positions than her husband adopted while in office, adapting to a profound change in public mood. Both Clintons now repudiate the restrictions on gay military service and marriage that Bill Clinton signed into law.
Hillary Clinton — who said as first lady that she considered marriage to be between a man and woman — is making support for same-sex marriage a centerpiece of her campaign and is on record encouraging a constitutional right to same-sex marriage nationwide.
On trade, candidate Clinton has declined to endorse a pending Asia-Pacific trade deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that is opposed by labor groups and which she supported as secretary of state. Critics of the proposed deal claim it would be a repeat of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which they blame for a loss of jobs and economic security. Bill Clinton fought his own party to ratify the deal with Canada and Mexico in 1994.
“NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement,” Bill Clinton said then.
[The making of Hillary 5.0: Re-imagining the Clinton brand]
Hillary Clinton plans to unveil a detailed policy agenda on a variety of economic and other issues this summer, and progressive leaders said they are paying close attention to see where else she may deviate from her husband’s legacy.
So far, Clinton has made only vague statements about the most important domestic issues for Democrats, including the push to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. She also has not said definitely whether she supports expanding Social Security benefits, a top agenda item for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a favorite of the party’s liberal base.
“The economy is where there are the most question marks,” said Andrew L. Stern, a former president of the Service Employees International Union.
Another area of possible departure is on policies regulating major financial institutions, which in the wake of the financial crisis and the Occupy Wall Street movement have become an important cause of many Democrats.
The Glass-Steagall regulatory law, for example, was repealed during the Clinton administration, and many progressives would like to see it restored.
“It’s possible that she will part with the Clinton administration on its policies toward Wall Street,” Reich said.

Anne Gearan is a national politics correspondent for The Washington