SNL or Debate?.....

hrc:  [e-mail question]  Once again...."I'm the most transparent that's ever been"......

    bs ....Sick and tired of hearing about the e-mails and want the press to stop covering.....[applause heard from CNN
             Press Box]...

    bs.....What we need is a $15 minimum wage nationwide

    hrc... Explaining her flip-flop on the trade agreement and really not answering or explaining what she actually said...She
            said that the agreement should be the gold standard of trade agreements--fact check said she said nothing like
              that and actually supported it twice and suddenly reversed her position....

    bs...... All colleges and universities in this country should be free to all.....

    hrc..... There should be no student loans needed to go to college.......
   
               *** Neither attempted to explain who or how this would be paid.....

     More entitlements along with free education and a $15 minimum wage....You know right now there are individuals that have their hands out already....

Sounds like Oblamer all over again. Promise and say anything that appeals to their entitlement voter base (aka lowest information voters) and just get their hide in office. Then start lying and blaming everyone else for their failures. Same old Dumbocrat script, different campaign.

It is so nice that we can post opinions here and not insult half the populace.

This divisive political circus will continue until big money is taken out of the equation through some serious campaign finance reform. It would be nice if a politician had to run on their own merits instead of corporate cash.

It would be nice if they followed the same laws the common people do and got punished for breaking them like the common people are..

Jake92 wrote:

It would be nice if they followed the same laws the common people do and got punished for breaking them like the common people are..

In this day and times....expecting that is not going to happen....We've got an individual that has done what others have done [or less] and is being afforded the opportunity to run for the highest office in the land while others [common people] have been punished for the same or similar circumstances....When lying/untruthfulness...cover-ups and obstructing...are acceptable in a candidate then as a society we get what is allowed....

nochain wrote:

This divisive political circus will continue until big money is taken out of the equation through some serious campaign finance reform. It would be nice if a politician had to run on their own merits instead of corporate cash.

While I'd agree with you about finance reform....the current situation has more to do with the lack of character...ethics...and responsibility rather than money....hrc is now establishing new lows [if that's even possible] in politics and is being allowed to do so by a paid off media and a corrupt administration/doj....Once again this behavior is nothing new with Clinton style politics and yet some act surprised and really is half the populace is insulted then they deserve to be...

There's another angle too. We keep hearing about limiting private or corp money and how the pacs are the corrupting influence. But those are by law already separated from the politicians. There needs to be limits directly on the politicians and who can interact with them in monied influence. That is perfectly constitutional... politicians are public servants. Private monies must be able to freely associate... to pool their money to promote their free speech. That isn't the same thing at all as donating to a candidate as a quid pro quo.

For example: Unions donating to hillary so that she will oppose the obamacaid cadillac tax or the tpp. Or warren buffett contributing so that she would oppose the keystone pipeline. These are the corruptions that directly affect our system.

PkrBum wrote:

There's another angle too. We keep hearing about limiting private or corp money and how the pacs are the corrupting influence. But those are by law already separated from the politicians. There needs to be limits directly on the politicians and who can interact with them in monied influence. That is perfectly constitutional... politicians are public servants. Private monies must be able to freely associate... to pool their money to promote their free speech. That isn't the same thing at all as donating to a candidate as a quid pro quo.

For example: Unions donating to hillary so that she will oppose the obamacaid cadillac tax or the tpp. Or warren buffett contributing so that she would oppose the keystone pipeline. These are the corruptions that directly affect our system.

Like the Swiss Bank that donated millions to the Clinton Foundation days after the then Sec of State's recommendations gaining them favors with the administration?....If hrc [as sec of state] was also doing Clinton Foundation business--is that a conflict of interest?....

Without a doubt... and highly illegal. I think that may be why she setup such a convoluted system and tried so hard to delete her "personal" emails. It's influence peddling at best. She and huma reversed positions and took up causes that were directly a conflict of interest even without the emails. She even tried to mitigate an investigation into a foreign bank.

Call me when they put ''w'' and dick in jail.

polecat wrote:

Call me when they put ''w'' and dick in jail.

For what?

Eric wrote:

It is so nice that we can post opinions here and not insult half the populace.

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

Call me when they put ''w'' and dick in jail.

For what?

ROFLMAO

*steps out of the shadows of a underground parking lot in Washington DC*
[whispers] This Benghazi committee may not be about Benghazi...- LOLGOP







News: Hillary won the debate!

My friends: Bernie won the debate!

Trump: I won the debate!

Huckabee: Asian people eat dogs!- OhNoSheTwitnt






The question is: Who will hurt the GOP more? Trump by being racist and terrible. Or Bush by dragging George W. out of mothballs.- LOLGOP






Know who else avoided military service in Vietnam? EVERY GOTDAMNED REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE SERVED. - Jeff Tiedrich

I watched the whole debate and I actually think O'Malley won the debate, hands down. His statements, if they were true, showed that he knows how to get things done and has done them in his state.
Having said that, since I know he doesn't have a chance at anything but maybe a VP spot, I'll vote for Bernie in the primaries or Joe Biden should he decide to run. That's because Bill Clinton said it best that you fall in love with a candidate during the primaries but you fall in line  for the general election. That's why I'll be voting for HRC in the general if she gets the nomination.
I don't think Obama has done her any good today with his breaking yet another of his promises to the American people by leaving Americans in Afghanistan for another 2 or 3 years. His presidency has had a few successes (yes, I think Obamacare is one of them) and otherwise been a slew of lies and unfulfilled promises. I don't think he'll go down in history as a very good POTUS and that is going to damage Hillary. I doubt it would damage any of the other candidates.
It was a good debate, lots of substance and none of the absolute clownishness and circus atmosphere  of either of the Republican debates.

The problem at this stage of the game is too many candidates on both sides, that's one reason I don't pay attention to polling. Until the herd is thinned out and the ones left standing start articulating REAL positions it's really a waste of time paying that much attention to the circus.

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

Call me when they put ''w'' and dick in jail.

For what?

You just can't help yourself.....

Eric wrote:

LOL, good one and sadly true when they hurl marshmallows. Well you know what they say, don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed.

I think it's funny how the MSM is crowing about how the farm animal "won" but it didn't budge her poll numbers. Tells me she didn't change minds with her carefully rehearsed performance.

The online polls and real time feedback overwhelmingly gave it to bernie.

It does make you wonder just how biased the msm is.

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

LOL, good one and sadly true when they hurl marshmallows. Well you know what they say, don't expect anything and you won't be disappointed.

I think it's funny how the MSM is crowing about how the farm animal "won" but it didn't budge her poll numbers. Tells me she didn't change minds with her carefully rehearsed performance.

For what it's worth.....Jim Webb is set to announce an Independent run for the White House and stated "To hell with the Dems"....He is very frustrated that the debate was "rigged" for hrc and the preferential treatment she is and has been receiving from the DNC [Wasserman-Schultz]....

Guess there's one Dem that agrees about the 'marshmallow questions' and that the debate(?) was a 'rehearsed performance' staged by the Dem Party....

Webb is dropping out today...

Jake92 wrote:

Webb is dropping out today...

He might as well, wouldn't make any sense for him to change his spots to Independent either.

Nochain, which end of the cow is Hillary on?