HRC off the hook

HRC off the hook (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:23:27 AM)
Kind of thought so and we're getting all of the partisan blow back. Rule of law ? Ha !! Since when ? HERE Seems either one incriminates themselves or they are guilty. Now it's the HOR (over sight comm.) and others. Oh and insofar as Rice & Powell are concerned, please refer me to the months long FBI investigation of them and their use of same. While you're at at it, please also refer me to the repub or dem house committee investigations of any of the many incidents of our foreign service personal being killed by various and numerous attacks from 2001 to 2008.

Lucylastic -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:28:29 AM)
It does make her VP pick an important one.

Awareness -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:34:07 AM)
Knew that was going to happen, especially after her husband engaged in stand-over tactics with the attorney general. Just more Clinton corruption, I'm afraid.

mnottertail -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:50:39 AM)
Don't you think its a matter of the ineffectual nutsuckers?

thishereboi -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 8:17:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic It does make her VP pick an important one. Yes it does. Now the question is will she pick one based on who will do the best job and compliment her abilities or will she go for the one who will get her the most votes. http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/02/campaign-running-mates-vetting/86640198/ "Clinton has said she wants a running mate who is well-prepared to become president. But Democrats say she’s also giving priority to diversity and has been weighing women, Hispanic and black candidates — a nod to the voting blocs Democrats need to win in presidential elections." That has to be the most honest thing I have heard the democrats say in a while.

mnottertail -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 8:21:50 AM)
Thats always honest, people select to balance the ticket, strengthen up where they are weak in nearly all cases, few exceptions. McCain, Trump, Perot right off hand.

JeffBC -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 8:55:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi "Clinton has said she wants a running mate who is well-prepared to become president. But Democrats say she’s also giving priority to diversity and has been weighing women, Hispanic and black candidates — a nod to the voting blocs Democrats need to win in presidential elections." I see no problem with this in theory. And honestly.... uh... Sarah Palin? My issue here is that what Clinton thinks constitutes being "well prepared to become president" doesn't even remotely match what I think. Worse, the sorts of picks that might actually convince me otherwise I instead see as machiavellian choices to neuter the opposition (Warren/Sanders) or else just more kabuki theater neoliberalism. I expect her to pick someone who ticks off the right progressive check boxes in an effort to woo Sanders supports but is a full-throated supporter of oligarchy. There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her.

thishereboi -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 8:58:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi "Clinton has said she wants a running mate who is well-prepared to become president. But Democrats say she’s also giving priority to diversity and has been weighing women, Hispanic and black candidates — a nod to the voting blocs Democrats need to win in presidential elections." I see no problem with this in theory. And honestly.... uh... Sarah Palin? My issue here is that what Clinton thinks constitutes being "well prepared to become president" doesn't even remotely match what I think. Worse, the sorts of picks that might actually convince me otherwise I instead see as machiavellian choices to neuter the opposition (Warren/Sanders) or else just more kabuki theater neoliberalism. I expect her to pick someone who ticks off the right progressive check boxes in an effort to woo Sanders supports but is a full-throated supporter of oligarchy. There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. good points

JeffBC -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 9:16:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi good points Heh... yeah. The problem is that I no longer see Republicans as "the opposition". I see plutocrats and technocrats as the opposition independent of their party. So the Republican party offers me no real choices either. This is going to be another round of "lets enrich the bankers at everyone else's expense" and we'll all get to reconsider in 2020. The only thing remaining to see is whether we get screwed by a Republican or a Democrat.

WickedsDesire -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 9:28:00 AM)
Hope this one doesn't get up to 80 pages of meandering cods wallop. I don't care, no idea why most of you lot do, or seem fixated with it. Still what did trump say - oh ye gods he did not just say that wanders off to start two threads

thompsonx -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 11:26:54 AM)
ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. Ralph nader, noam chomski?

DaddySatyr -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 12:18:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I see no problem with this in theory. And honestly.... uh... Sarah Palin? My issue here is that what Clinton thinks constitutes being "well prepared to become president" doesn't even remotely match what I think. Worse, the sorts of picks that might actually convince me otherwise I instead see as machiavellian choices to neuter the opposition (Warren/Sanders) or else just more kabuki theater neoliberalism. I expect her to pick someone who ticks off the right progressive check boxes in an effort to woo Sanders supports but is a full-throated supporter of oligarchy. There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. I would really like to know if/how much/how often does the term: "life insurance" enter into a candidate's head, when they are weighing the running mate decision. Michael

WhoreMods -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 1:22:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. Ralph nader, noam chomski? Hasn't Nader said that he's supporting Flump?

MrRodgers -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 2:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. Ralph nader, noam chomski? I'd take either fucking one over either fucking one. But it still wouldn't matter...they's still be forced to be puppets.

MrRodgers -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 2:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC I see no problem with this in theory. And honestly.... uh... Sarah Palin? My issue here is that what Clinton thinks constitutes being "well prepared to become president" doesn't even remotely match what I think. Worse, the sorts of picks that might actually convince me otherwise I instead see as machiavellian choices to neuter the opposition (Warren/Sanders) or else just more kabuki theater neoliberalism. I expect her to pick someone who ticks off the right progressive check boxes in an effort to woo Sanders supports but is a full-throated supporter of oligarchy. There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. I would really like to know if/how much/how often does the term: "life insurance" enter into a candidate's head, when they are weighing the running mate decision. Michael Every time and that's why the repub establishment told Reagan to take GHWB when he didn't want him and [he] was anything but life insurance.

MrRodgers -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 2:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. Ralph nader, noam chomski? Hasn't Nader said that he's supporting Flump? No, he calls our govt. the 'two party tyranny.' Last I saw, he likes the Green party candidate whoever that is.....? And...it still wouldn't matter. The powers behind the throne considers only the green...on the greenback.

RottenJohnny -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 5:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. No matter whose name she utters, she's already picked Bill. She's just calling him her "economic advisor" instead of admitting that she needs his experience as President to make up for all of her shortcomings.

mnottertail -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire Hope this one doesn't get up to 80 pages of meandering cods wallop. I don't care, no idea why most of you lot do, or seem fixated with it. Still what did trump say - oh ye gods he did not just say that wanders off to start two threads codswallop. out.

JeffBC -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:41:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: JeffBC There is no conceivable pick she could make that would in any way encourage me to vote for her. Ralph nader, noam chomski? As much as I respect Noam Chomski why on earth would that make me feel any better about Hillary Clinton? You'd have to make me believe that the Vice President could, in some way, actually influence policy. As it is, I see it as nothing more than a pathetic bid to woo liberal populists. This is a lot like I don't really care what the Democratic party platform says. You'd first have to convince me that anyone in the Democratic party actually cared about the platform before I would care what's in it.

BamaD -> RE: HRC off the hook (7/6/2016 7:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Knew that was going to happen, especially after her husband engaged in stand-over tactics with the attorney general. Just more Clinton corruption, I'm afraid. Rule 1 nothing the Clintons do is against the law Rule 2 if the Clintons break the law the law is wrong. Rule 3 if it looks like the Clintons broke the law it is Bush's fault.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125