For reference, the NH Republican debate is on as I type;

Kasich and Bush seem to be garnering some traction. Christie as well to a lesser extent. And the last shall be first?????
Trump invoked visions of Reagan and Tip ONeill as how he would be making deals..... Who in their right mind is going to get in a room with him to be lambasted and insulted simply for having a different opinion? He has some nationalist views that are capturing many, but is still a wildcard IMO. His over the top style reminds me of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former President of Iran.
Cruz and Rubio have been rattled and are fighting to regain momentum.
I am surprised when Carson gets a question as I forget he is even there.
Seems to be governors night....I have been waiting for Jeb to show up.

I think a little lambasting is what is needed. I feel Obama took every opportunity to bash the Republicans unnecessarily. He seems to forget that he is the president of all Americans including the Republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kasich is the only republican on stage I would consider voting for.. if the election was today

all the others to include Sanders seem to forget they need to do it Via Congress ... it all sound's good in the primarys . Their wish lists

I think once its a 2 person race .. what they are saying now will be far different then

from the Kasich website

A STRATEGY FOR DISMANTLING WASHINGTON (I like this guy already)

By making government smaller, less costly and more responsive to our needs we can get our economy going again and have the resources to secure our nation, strengthen our families and communities, and reach our God-given potential.

Education is a state and local issue and should not be micro-managed by the federal government.

As Governor of Ohio, he has enacted more measures to protect unborn children than any other governor in the history of the state, including bans on late-term abortions and bans on elective abortions in public hospitals. Standing Up for Life in the Face of Opposition: Because of his consistent adherence to his pro-life beliefs, John Kasich is a frequent target of abortionist groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Removing Burdensome Restrictions for Law-Abiding Concealed Carry Licensees: Opposing Barack Obama’s Gun Control Efforts:

Obamacare is the Wrong Diagnosis and Must Be Repealed and Replaced:

The Largest Tax Cut in the Nation:

Eliminating Wasteful Red Tape: Recognizing that unnecessary regulation stifles job creators and discourages investment

he's also been artful regarding the marriage thing


I don't see where Kasich differs from most of the other republican candidates policy wise....

I think if you take a look... I think Cruz, Carson, Rubio, bush, Fiorino, Christie all have pretty solid understanding and regard for the important role of Congress in the Federal government and Constitutional framework, not so sure about Trump....or Obama for that matter or the rest of the dems

are you saying "Kasich is the only republican on stage I would consider voting for.. if the election was today AND ONLY REPUBLICANS WERE ON THE BALLOT" ?

if it's any of those republicans vs. Hillary who would you vote for? because if it's Hillary(pretty stark contrast to Kasich), the rest doesn't matter:)

Jeb should not B throwing stones when living in a glass house....he reminds me of the person on here that lives in a glass town or city.

Any way Jeb jumped on Trump for eminent domain taking....well the Bush family used eminent domain and used the power of government to take land from other private citizens so it could be used for their own private purposes building a baseball stadium in Austin Texas at the tax payers expense....jr. was governor at the time...if trump had known that then he would have jumped all over bush....:)

John Kasich has the most experience out of all of them spending about 18 years in congress and was not voted out, he left....what scares me about him he likes to cut into medicare and military spending and supported a bill to band assault weapons under bill clinton....:)

You do realize without eminent domain we wouldn't have streets or highways or natural gas pipelines and even electricity. He offered her a million to sell and she refused. He then sought to use eminent domain but lost in court. I see his actions as a person who finds ways to get things done. The people get compensated for their property if it is taken by eminent domain so it isn't as though their property got stolen. Check out Vera Coking home and Bob Guccione and see what was there before Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

from the Kasich website

A STRATEGY FOR DISMANTLING WASHINGTON (I like this guy already)

:)

I like what Kasich did in Ohio. i don't like the way, in debates, he interrupts people and bashes all of them. He might be agreat VP pick, he might be abke to deliver Ohio, which they absolutely cannoy win without, no chance.

Kasich is the only republican on stage I would consider voting for.. if the election was today

all the others to include Sanders seem to forget they need to do it Via Congress ... it all sound's good in the primarys . Their wish lists

I think once its a 2 person race .. what they are saying now will be far different then

Kasich is the more interesting to me. I am not as worried as much about his interupting but he does seem to have a hey, look at me complex. I cannot vote for Clinton. And I refuse to vote for Sanders. I have no desire to vote for Bush or Trump.

Sadly there is no moderate Dem in the race.

Bring Sandars to Europe and he is a moderate. Bring Hillary over there and she is a republican ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bring Sandars to Europe and he is a moderate. Bring Hillary over there and she is a republican ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why? Because Europe is 20-30 years further down the political de-evolution wormhole?

Bring Hillary over there and she is a republican ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bring her over to China and she would be cranking out Nike sneakers at break neck speed.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why? Because Europe is 20-30 years further down the political de-evolution wormhole?

Are you kidding? Their healthcare rocks. Education is great. Pay rates are better. Look at the standard of living charts for Sweden / Norway and then scroll down a long long ways down to find Murika where we have more children living in poverty than some 3rd world countries.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you kidding? Their healthcare rocks. Education is great. Pay rates are better. Look at the standard of living charts for Sweden / Norway and then scroll down a long long ways down to find Murika where we have more children living in poverty than some 3rd world countries.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it when liberals point to Norway and Sweden as examples of "how socialism works".

Neither one of those countries has huge numbers of African Americans. Neither one of those countries has a huge, open border with Mexico. Nebe, those countries are very, very white. And they are pretty strict on immigration, especially Norway. And in the case of Norway, everyone has an oil well in their backyard.

So Norway is 99.99% white, everyone has an oil well, and they don't let anyone else in (these are slight exaggerations, but you get the point). And you think that because their system works in Norway, that means it would work equally well here?

Let's move the city of Chicago right into the center of Norway, then let's move Mexico to the southern border of Norway, and open that border. Then let's see what Norway looks like in 25 years.

Apples and oranges, Nebe. Apples and oranges.

We are a huge, open, diverse country. They are tiny, and ethnically homogenous. You want to have Norway's standard of living? Let's kick everyone out of America who isn't white, and put an oil well in everyone's backyard, and then seal our borders tight. Until you do that, you can't compare to Norway.

Here in America, we don't have a lot of poverty among our scandanavian immigrants, they do just fine. Our problems lie elsewhere, and those problems are unique to America, therefore they require a unique solution.

Let's kick everyone out of America who isn't white, and put an oil well in everyone's backyard, and then seal our borders tight.

So... you support Trump then :jump::jump::jump:

So... you support Trump then :jump::jump::jump:

Nope, I think he's a vulgar buffoon.

I guess I didn't articulate that well. I am not endorsing those radical ideas. I am saying that you cannot look at a tiny, lilly white Scandanavian country with closed borders and abundant oil, and suggest that if socialism works there, it can therefore work here.

Our culture is just a wee bit different than Norway's culture, you see.

If you put a small number of ethnically homogeneous people on an island, seal it off, and then struck oil or gold on that island, it's not hard to have a high standard of living on that island. That doesn't mean that model works in America.

Imagine if the American liberals ran Norway. They'd open the borders in the name of inclusion, they'd destroy the oil wells in the name of climate change, and Norway would look like Somalia in a month.

Norway is a snow-white country whose entire economy depends on oil, and they allow almost no immigration. Yet liberals like to point to it a sa nation we should emulate. It's kind of funny when you think of it that way.

Nope, I think he's a vulgar buffoon
Watch the recent video of Trump calling Cruz a pu$$y. People want this man to be President...

I find Hillary more offensive.
And more of a threat to our nation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Watch the recent video of Trump calling Cruz a pu$$y. People want this man to be President...

It's embarassing.

On your side, the heavy favorite denied that her husband cheated on her, but rather, was being framed by the GOP. She also claims to have come under sniper attack when no such thing happened.

Trump would appear to be a jerk. Hilary would appear to be either a serial liar, or a lunatic, take your pick.

Which is worse?

And yet Polifact rates EVERY Repub. more dishonest than EVERY Dem. running for Pre.

Nope, I think he's a vulgar buffoon.

I guess I didn't articulate that well. I am not endorsing those radical ideas. I am saying that you cannot look at a tiny, lilly white Scandanavian country with closed borders and abundant oil, and suggest that if socialism works there, it can therefore work here.

Our culture is just a wee bit different than Norway's culture, you see.

If you put a small number of ethnically homogeneous people on an island, seal it off, and then struck oil or gold on that island, it's not hard to have a high standard of living on that island. That doesn't mean that model works in America.

Imagine if the American liberals ran Norway. They'd open the borders in the name of inclusion, they'd destroy the oil wells in the name of climate change, and Norway would look like Somalia in a month.

Norway is a snow-white country whose entire economy depends on oil, and they allow almost no immigration. Yet liberals like to point to it a sa nation we should emulate. It's kind of funny when you think of it that way.

Jeezuz Jim... I put 50 smileys to show I was joking.

I find Hillary more offensive.
And more of a threat to our nation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are very different, but I agree with you.

Trump is a textbook cocky narcissist who thinks his money allows him to do whatever he wants.

Hilary, at her core, is an abmitious politician, who will say and do anything, absolutely anytihng, to appease whatever voting block she happens to be whoring herself out to that day. For example, she was adamant that Iraq had WMDs, and was a huge supporter of the invasion. Until polling showed that the war was a political liabliity, then she couldn't distance herself fast enough.

I do wonder, Dangles, if she gets elected, would she govern as a moderate (like her husband was, in my opinion), or would she just take the baton from Obama and run with it?

Jeezuz Jim... I put 50 smileys to show I was joking.

Well, actuaries are not exactly known for their sense of humor! And as a fairly consistent conservative, I wouldn't blame anyone for assuming I like Trump. I probably agree with him on more issues than I agree with Hilary, but he's too vulgar and bombastic for my taste.

Sorry.

I find Hillary more offensive.
And more of a threat to our nation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agree, she is just not trust worthy, old school politician,
busted valiese , same old same old.

I do wonder, Dangles, if she gets elected, would she govern as a moderate (like her husband was, in my opinion), or would she just take the baton from Obama and run with it?

Jim, she has already said several times she would follow in Obama's footsteps, but
then again it all depends on what audience she is speaking too.

She will govern if elected in what ever way pushes the most money into the Clinton foundation and into speaking fees for Bill. Simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She will govern if elected in what ever way pushes the most money into the Clinton foundation and into speaking fees for Bill. Simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ding ding ding...we have a winner!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As big of a scumbag as Bill was personally, I thought he was a decent President. For darn sure, he recognized the fact that it was his job to serve all of us, not just the Democrats. He knew how to lead wihtout always dividing us. Obama could learn a lesson there.

Her platform is essentially finishing what Barry started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you kidding? Their healthcare rocks. Education is great. Pay rates are better. Look at the standard of living charts for Sweden / Norway and then scroll down a long long ways down to find Murika where we have more children living in poverty than some 3rd world countries.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can't imagine what the influx of Syrian refugees has done to Sweden. A real shame for a a culture that is used to things going smoothly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her platform is essentially finishing what Barry started.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is absolutely what she is saying, you are 100% correct. I just wonder if she is sincere about that, or if she is just saying that, because she knows that's what she needs to say, to get the nomination of her party.

What she is saying, is way to the left of where her husband governed. Which I guess shows you how far that party has drifted to the left since 2000.

You can't imagine what the influx of Syrian refugees has done to Sweden. A real shame for a a culture that is used to things going smoothly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Also true, and the native Swedes appear to have had it up to their eyeballs with the refugees and their absolute refusal to assimmilate.

This is what I see happening when Bernie is elected.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is what I see happening when Bernie is elected.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

then there's reality.......

"Sen. Bernard Sanders‘ promises of a democratic socialist revolution have enthralled liberal voters this campaign season, but the Vermont independent’s legislative record shows he has had a tough time turning his progressive vision into reality.

During his quarter-century in Congress, Mr. Sanders has been the chief sponsor of just three bills that were signed into law: two renaming U.S. Postal Service offices in his home state of Vermont and one that increased the annual cost-of-living raise for veterans’ benefits, which he secured as chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee in 2013."


maybe we'll get some more post offices renamed....I think he's meeting with his running mate today...Rev. Al Sharpton

:wave:

This is what I see happening when Bernie is elected.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/economy/sanders-income-jobs/index.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, this is the projection of en economist who admits he is a fan of socialism.

Most other economists are confident it would be a disaster.

Nebe, the places you suggested as examples of wehre socialism "works", are tiny, lilly white countries that don't allow significant immigration, and in the case of Norway, they have more oil than they know what to do with.

On the GOP side, fatty is out. I wonder if that helps Kasich more than Rubio. Carson, Bush, Fiorina need to go as well.

then there's reality.......

I think he's meeting with his running mate today...Rev. Al Sharpton

:wave:

If he somehow gets the nomination, his running mate is going to be Lie-awatha, Liz Warren. She want-um teepee of great white chief.

We shall see. My point here and I should have voiced it is that I see the economy picking up. Higher wages equals more spending and the fly wheels turn faster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that true? He detroyed her in the votes.

The powers-that-be, will never let him get the nomination, and if he somehow got it, Hilary (or Biden or Gore) would run as a 3rd party.

We shall see. My point here and I should have voiced it is that I see the economy picking up. Higher wages equals more spending and the fly wheels turn faster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If wages rise because th emarketplace calls for that, that's a good thing. If wages rise because the government arbitrarily decides it knows what wages should be, that would likely be bad. Nebe, they can't just print off enough money to give each of us $1 million, it doesn't work.

The value of something, is that which someone is willing to pay for it, not what some activist wishes it to be.

If wages rise because th emarketplace calls for that, that's a good thing. If wages rise because the government arbitrarily decides it knows what wages should be, that would likely be bad. Nebe, they can't just print off enough money to give each of us $1 million, it doesn't work.

The value of something, is that which someone is willing to pay for it, not what some activist wishes it to be.

that's why they're exploring negative interest rates (like in Europe)...sure sign of a burgeoning economy :uhuh:

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time will tell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

said the guy holding the ticking time bomb

here's proof that the economy will surely take a tumble

White House forecasts fastest economic growth in a decade

Published: Feb 9, 2016 :rotflmao:

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I looked it up, you are right, because there are 8 "super delegates" who can go with whoever they want, regardless of the voting turnout.

Nebe, how do you like that? Sanders crushes her in New Hampshire, yet he falls further behind her in terms of getting the nomination.

How democratic.

Why bother with the primaries?

Listen to this, from the article..."In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders"

She has almost 10 times as many delegates as he does, despite the fact that it was a virtual tie in Iowa, and the fact that he destroyed her in NH.

Spence? Your opinion on the matter?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/

Wow. A lot like NFL refs :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I looked it up, you are right, because there are 8 "super delegates" who can go with whoever they want, regardless of the voting turnout.

Nebe, how do you like that? Sanders crushes her in New Hampshire, yet he falls further behind her in terms of getting the nomination.

How democratic.

Why bother with the primaries?

Listen to this, from the article..."In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders"

She has almost 10 times as many delegates as he does, despite the fact that it was a virtual tie in Iowa, and the fact that he destroyed her in NH.

Spence? Your opinion on the matter?


http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/

It is silly, but super delegates are not new to 2016....

It is silly, but super delegates are not new to 2016....

How about the practice of undermining the democtratic process, is that new? Has a demeocratic candidate ever gotten this screwed before?

this is how Sanders explains the current economic situation in this country...

this is how Sanders explains the current economic situation in this country...

There's some truth to that cartoon, but it's highly exaggerated.

Take the favorite liberal target of corporate greed, WalMart.

Accordsing to this abcnews link, the CEO recenly had annual compensation of $35 million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-ceo-pay-hour-workers-year/story?id=11067470

From this article, Wal-mart employees 1.4 million people in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

So, how much is the CEO "stealing" from the working stiff? Well, if we assume that the CEO worked for free, and divided his $35 million compensation evenly among all 1.4 million employees, each one would get an extra $25 a year. Exactly $25 a year.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Nebe, I would never argue it's "fair" that a CEO makes $35 million, because it's not "fair". But it's also demonstrably false to suggest that CEO compensation is the reason why the wages of regular folks are not increasing. For most large companies, CEO compensation is a very small drop in the bucket.

The math is, what the math is.

I have worked for huge companies. I'd happily sacrfice $25 a year to have a good CEO who could run the company with skill.

Right on point Jim ,$25 each employee for a $35 million CEO salary about says it all.
If he is a good CEO and increases revenue that will increase
the employees IRA, many times over, including the increase
$$$ for outside stock holders who will spend more.

In addition the $35 million doesn't leave the economy,
but a large part goes back in the economy creating increased sales
for other companies, charities and taxes.
The libs would have you believe the guy keeps it out of the
economy and walks around with it as a big roll in his pocket. LOL
A big pseudo play on creating jealousy.

It is silly, but super delegates are not new to 2016....

It's beyond silly, it is corrupt to the core. When Hillary wins the nomination ,by the votes of corrupt super-delegates , there should be an uproar in your party .
But the silence will be deafening.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right on point Jim ,$25 each employee for a $35 million CEO salary about says it all.
If he is a good CEO and increases revenue that will increase
the employees IRA, many times over, including the increase
$$$ for outside stock holders who will spend more.

In addition the $35 million doesn't leave the economy,
but a large part goes back in the economy creating increased sales
for other companies, charities and taxes.
The libs would have you believe the guy keeps it out of the
economy and walks around with it as a big roll in his pocket. LOL
A big pseudo play on creating jealousy.

Most CEOs, who's compensation is reported in the multi millions, have a large portion of that paid in company stock .
The same people that complain about their pay , think nothing of buying a $125 ticket to a game to watch their 30 million a year stud quarterback throw a pass .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's some truth to that cartoon, but it's highly exaggerated.

Take the favorite liberal target of corporate greed, WalMart.

Accordsing to this abcnews link, the CEO recenly had annual compensation of $35 million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-ceo-pay-hour-workers-year/story?id=11067470

From this article, Wal-mart employees 1.4 million people in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employees-pay

So, how much is the CEO "stealing" from the working stiff? Well, if we assume that the CEO worked for free, and divided his $35 million compensation evenly among all 1.4 million employees, each one would get an extra $25 a year. Exactly $25 a year.

Whoop-dee-doo.

Nebe, I would never argue it's "fair" that a CEO makes $35 million, because it's not "fair". But it's also demonstrably false to suggest that CEO compensation is the reason why the wages of regular folks are not increasing. For most large companies, CEO compensation is a very small drop in the bucket.

The math is, what the math is.

I have worked for huge companies. I'd happily sacrfice $25 a year to have a good CEO who could run the company with skill.

I have done zero research into this but the CEO of Walmart runs he company. He doesn't own it. Look into how much money the family that owns it sucked from the company. Then look at how many employees are payed so little that they have to use government assistance and food stamps, which you and I pay for.

Not everything is black and white.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done zero research into this but...


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rollem:

How about the practice of undermining the democratic process, is that new? Has a democratic candidate ever gotten this screwed before?

Probably, you may see the same thing happen to Trump....
The system has aspects that suck, but it is the system we have.. Go back to the Popular Vote? Good evening President Gore....

Probably, you may see the same thing happen to Trump....
The system has aspects that suck, but it is the system we have.. Go back to the Popular Vote? Good evening President Gore....

Probably not. The Democrats have their own special system .
It is pretty ironic though isn't it? Bernie worked so hard for something only to have it taken away and given to somebody that doesn't deserve it 😂😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rollem:

Bam

http://walmart1percent.org/family/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have done zero research into this but the CEO of Walmart runs he company. He doesn't own it. Look into how much money the family that owns it sucked from the company. Then look at how many employees are payed so little that they have to use government assistance and food stamps, which you and I pay for.

Not everything is black and white.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, the owners of the company are entitled to the profits. They own the company. That's what "ownership" means. Do you hold onto the things you own? Or do you give it all away?

Probably, you may see the same thing happen to Trump....
The system has aspects that suck, but it is the system we have.. Go back to the Popular Vote? Good evening President Gore....

In the electoral college, within a state, it is by popular vote.

She has NINE TIMES the delegates he has. One state was a tie, in one state she got clobbered. And she has nine times the delegates.

That doesn't come close to resembling democracy, I dare you to make that wrong. You can't.

A small number of people controlling that party, will decide who the nominee is. The people have no say. If Trump wins the states with the most delegates, it would piss me off if a small number of GOP kingmakers took that from him.

Who said anything about giving it all away? If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc.

If you look at personal income growth it was awesome from ww2 until the 70's and then it slowed way down. And suddenly, poof! CEO's started making tons of money. What started that change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, no one has to work there, no one has to shop there. The Waltons figured out how to do retail better than anyone on the planet.

"But I can see why you support that from your posting history."

I want everyone to succeed and be comfortable, I genuinely do. If I had billions, I would happily give 99% of it away. But you can't take it by force.

You, and liberals, have this idea that the wealthy are stealing from everyone else. Not so. Wealth is not finite. Neither the Waltons, nor the CEO of Walmart, are responsible for the fact that so many kids don't do homework in high school, and this are stuck in dead-end jobs. The solution isn't to punish the wealthy, the better solution is to incentivize people to acquire the skills to get a better job than stocking shelves at Walmart.

Liberalism: gimme, gimme, gimme.

White cops are to blame for violence against blacks. The wealthy are to blame for poverty.

Yawn.

In many cases, people do have to work there. A walmart moves into town and poof. small mom and pop business start going out of business. The double whammy for so many small towns is a home depot and a walmart. You will loose your hardware store, your whole main street of shops could close.. Im talking about very rural towns by the way. Add a Panera Bread and a Chipotle to the mix and you will loose family owned restaurants. Im not saying this is illegal or is immoral, etc, but this is the root problem.

but this is the root problem.

this is funny...you see a large organization that pays it's bills and meets it's obligations as the root of the problem....I see a large government that can't pay it's current bills and obligations and in fact, is so indebted that it's current track is widely termed unsustainable in numbers unfathomable... as the root of the problem.....you apparently think reducing the salary of the person successfully running an organization as well as reducing the "pillaging" by the owners of that organization which is paying it's bills and meeting it's obligations as part of the solution to the root of the problem.....I think reducing the size and expense and obligations of an organization multi trillions in debt, whose obligations are riddled with fraud, waste and abuse, patronage, cronyism....and whose actors are so entrenched and beholden at the trough that they cannot make decisions in the best interest of the organization as the root of the problem...


your guy, bernie, wants to expand the scope of the federal government funneling trillions more $$$ through it if he is elected....how is that going to improve "the root" of the problem for the federal government? Isn't that like showing up at an alcoholics convention with more booze?

Probably not. The Democrats have their own special system .
It is pretty ironic though isn't it? Bernie worked so hard for something only to have it taken away and given to somebody that doesn't deserve it ����
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:lama: Giddayup....redistribution of delegates!

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wake up Eben....http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-06/an-unintended-consequence-of-wal-mart-pay-raise-unhappy-workers

If I had employees I would .......


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....understand the "actual" cost of having employees :hihi:

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

She has 9 times as many delegates. She barely won Iowa, and got creamed in NH. And the guy who wrote your article, says we shouldn't care about that, because up until now, superdelegates have never decided anything.

Here's my question - why do they exist at all? For what purpose? Please answer.

Bernie won NH by the largest margin ever, I believe. And after that primary, he fell further behind Hilary. If that's democracy, I fail to see how, and you can never explain that away.

Who said anything about giving it all away? If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc.

If you look at personal income growth it was awesome from ww2 until the 70's and then it slowed way down. And suddenly, poof! CEO's started making tons of money. What started that change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"CEO's started making tons of money"

But that doesn't mean that everyone else makes a lot less, as I showed with the Walmart math. Nebe, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

"If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc"

Right. If you owned a small restaurant, you would pay your cashiers and busboys enough to pay rent, a car payment, etc?? The economy doesn't work that way, Nebe. There are unskilled, entry-level jobs that are not designed to be sufficient to raise a family on. If we paid everyone $50k a year for every job, prices at every department store would skyrocket, and you'd be complaining about the new high prices.

The problem isn't CEO pay. You now know that.

The problem is we have too many kids whose parents don't encourage them to do schoolwork. If you get C's and D's in high school (and for most kids who do, it's a choice on their part), you are going to struggle. There's nothing unfair about that. There are a small number of people who don't have the ability to rise above menial work at Walmart, and we have an obligation to help those people. People who chose to slack off? Different story. They can work harder and get promoted at Walmart, they can go to school at night, etc.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/after-sanders-big-win-in-new-hampshire-establishme.html

I see you got your, be a condescending ass memo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the Buckman attempt at civil discourse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the Buckman attempt at civil discourse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts(or anything that disagrees with their world view)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's the essential ingredient for membership:bgi:

The Democrats have super delegates because they know the people who vote for Democrats cannot be trusted to vote for the right Democratic candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's how your system works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to see the actual vote from Iowa but I suspect Hillary wasn't all that popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please explain how that system of yours is consistent with the principles of "democracy".

Spence, how can you get behind a candidate who claims to be opposed to how "rigged" the system supposedly is, when she is perfectly willing to reap for herself the benefits of being an insider?

How can anyone take this woman seroiusly?

history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As long as the herd votes for the candidate preferred by the super-delegates. When the majority have a different idea than the super-delegates, we are witnessing what happens. Yet those same Democratic insiders claim to be opposed to "crony capitalism". Unbelievable. You cannot make this up.

She has 9 times as many delegates. She barely won Iowa, and got creamed in NH. And the guy who wrote your article, says we shouldn't care about that, because up until now, superdelegates have never decided anything.

Here's my question - why do they exist at all? For what purpose? Please answer.

Bernie won NH by the largest margin ever, I believe. And after that primary, he fell further behind Hilary. If that's democracy, I fail to see how, and you can never explain that away.

Constitutional Republic, not to be confused with a dictatorship of the proletatiat

Constitutional Republic, not to be confused with a dictatorship of the proletatiat

True, we are a republic, but in a democratic republic, officials are supposed to reflect the will of the people they are supposed to serve (you can take time to laugh at that if you want).

I believe all democrats in congress are superdelegates. Who are the other superdelegates? I presume not all of them are elected, that some are appointed. In which case, they are not answerable to the voters, therefore the voters have zero say in how they vote. That's precisely contrary to everything we were founded upon.

If voting made any difference, they would not let us do it.....:)

It does not matter if bernie wins more democratic primaries, it is set in stone that hillary if not indited will B the nominee and that's the way it is....:)

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

But what is the logic behind it? Why i sth enomination process more democratic with the super-delegates?

And there was a lot of controversy in 2008, when it came down to the wire between Hilary and Weird Harold. She won the popular vote, he had the super delegates. Then, there was this weird situation where the DNC "punished" some states for having their primaries too early, by reducing the number of regular (non-super)delegates those states represented. I doin't remember who won those states or if it turned out to matter.

But I cannot imagine what the point of them is, except to undermine the democratic process, in the admittedly unlikely event that a non-establishment candidate wins a majority of the regular delegates. The king-makers want to make sure they approve of who the herd nominates. What other possible explanation is there?

I don't think it exists on the GOP side, and for good reason. As horrified as I am at the prospect of a Trump nomination, if he wins enough states, he has earned the right to be the nominee.

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what hapened in their state's primary.

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what happened in their state's primary.

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

We shall see. My point here and I should have voiced it is that I see the economy picking up. Higher wages equals more spending and the fly wheels turn faster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

at what point do you need to stop stimulating these economies that you think are thriving?


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/swedish-central-bank-unleashes-more-stimulus-after-krona-warning

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/fed-chair-yellen-theres-always-some-chance-of-recession.html

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

They don't vote on the GOP side, I think they are just symbolic.

According to this MSNBC article, at the time it was written (2007), the Democratic superdelegates were 40% of the total. And many are not elected officials (like former Presidents), and therefore they are not accountable to the public, and therefore they have no business determining who will represent us. Maybe it's different now? Amazing to me.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18277678/ns/politics/t/what-role-democratic-super-delegates/

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The issue with Conservatives facts are they tend to look like icebergs only factual on the surface and the rest hidden from view .. I would rather see the whole iceberg before I conclude the game is rigged


Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

If sanders keeps winning states those superdelegate's Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes just like they did in 2008
and if they are arrogant enough to ignore the people's votes they will lose more than the white house

The issue with Conservatives facts are they tend to look like icebergs only factual on the surface and the rest hidden from view .. I would rather see the whole iceberg before I conclude the game is rigged


Clinton also led in the superdelegate race in the 2008 presidential cycle and eventually lost to Barack Obama.

If sanders keeps winning states those superdelegate's Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes just like they did in 2008
and if they are arrogant enough to ignore the people's votes they will lose more than the white house

Then why haven't the NH superdelegates announced that they are supporting Bernie, in line with the will of their people?

"Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes"

They haven't yet...We'll see. You are speculating. The critics are responding to what the superdelegates are actually saying. They support Hilary, they haven't said their support is contingent upon her winning the popular vote. So it seems like you are comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.

Can anyone explain the purpose for having the superdelegates? Spence, Paul, Rockhound, anyone?

Then why haven't the NH superdelegates announced that they are supporting Bernie, in line with the will of their people?

"Most will move over to the person winning the popular votes"

They haven't yet...We'll see. You are speculating. The critics are responding to what the superdelegates are actually saying. They support Hilary, they haven't said their support is contingent upon her winning the popular vote. So it seems like you are comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.

you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them..

last time I checked the primarys are still going on as for comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.. come see me when the point your insinuating happens.. if Sanders wins the upcoming primaries like Obama did in 2008 and gets the popular vote and the Superdelegates swing it Her Way >> I will join the voices of those outraged.. and as i said the party would destroy it's self ..

Past history suggest what I have said.. Could I be wrong Absolutely But untill it happens is just speculation

good write up http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them..

last time I checked the primarys are still going on as for comfortable with less-than-all-the-facts, when it suits you.. come see me when the point your insinuating happens.. if Sanders wins the upcoming primaries like Obama did in 2008 and gets the popular vote and the Superdelegates swing it Her Way >> I will join the voices of those outraged.. and as i said the party would destroy it's self ..

Past history suggest what I have said.. Could I be wrong Absolutely But untill it happens is just speculation

good write up http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/superdelegates-might-not-save-hillary-clinton/


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

"you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them.. "

I did, found no reason for their existence. Deb Wasserman Shultz tried to explain it on CNN, and even CNN laughed at her response. Any reason why you can't tell me why they exist?

"come see me when the point your insinuating happens"

It's happening, so here I am. Bernie cleaned Hilary's clock in NH, and somehow he fell further behind in terms of delegates. Please tell me how that is remotely consistent with democracy?

"But untill it happens is just speculation "

You are the one speculating, I am the one responding to what has actually happened. Bernie fell further behind after winning NH. You speculate that in the very end it won't matter.

What if Bernie supporters don't bother turning out in subsequent primaries, because they see that it's rigged for Hilary?

What is the downside of doing away with superdelegates? Why even allow for the possibility that delegates who are not elected (and thus not answerable to anyone) to select the candidate? Hmmm? Why not just let the voters decide and just be done with superdelegates? I'm pretty sure I have heard Democrats claim that they are the ones who care about the little guy, and that the GOP is supposed to be the party of inside cronyism. Tell that to Bernie Sanders, who won the NH primary by a record amount, yet somehow fell further behind Hilary. That crap influences voter turnout, and it influences donations.

Have fun coming up with an artful dodge.

"you can google superdelegates and get all the info and the history of them.. "

I did, found no reason for their existence. Deb Wasserman Shultz tried to explain it on CNN, and even CNN laughed at her response. Any reason why you can't tell me why they exist?

"come see me when the point your insinuating happens"

It's happening, so here I am. Bernie cleaned Hilary's clock in NH, and somehow he fell further behind in terms of delegates. Please tell me how that is remotely consistent with democracy?

"But untill it happens is just speculation "

You are the one speculating, I am the one responding to what has actually happened. Bernie fell further behind after winning NH. You speculate that in the very end it won't matter.

What if Bernie supporters don't bother turning out in subsequent primaries, because they see that it's rigged for Hilary?

What is the downside of doing away with superdelegates? Why even allow for the possibility that delegates who are not elected (and thus not answerable to anyone) to select the candidate? Hmmm? Why not just let the voters decide and just be done with superdelegates? I'm pretty sure I have heard Democrats claim that they are the ones who care about the little guy, and that the GOP is supposed to be the party of inside cronyism. Tell that to Bernie Sanders, who won the NH primary by a record amount, yet somehow fell further behind Hilary. That crap influences voter turnout, and it influences donations.

Have fun coming up with an artful dodge.

I can't Dodge your imaginary vision on what you think the out come will be?
If your not voting Democrat I can only surmise this bothers you because you hope Berine will be the nominee so the republicans will have an easier time getting to the white house .. Because as I see it he "Berine" can't win nationally A lot of things influences voter turnout, and it influences donations. winning a white as rice state as NH influences a lot also it cuts both ways

The super delegates are crap, they exist simply to help those entrenched in the Democratic Party to keep control.

Before the first lever was pulled in the primary, Sanders was already behind 402 delegates based on who declared their backing for each candidate.

That is rediculous......

I'm pretty sure this is the same party that was pissed because Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't Dodge your imaginary vision on what you think the out come will be?
If your not voting Democrat I can only surmise this bothers you because you hope Berine will be the nominee so the republicans will have an easier time getting to the white house .. Because as I see it he "Berine" can't win nationally A lot of things influences voter turnout, and it influences donations. winning a white as rice state as NH influences a lot also it cuts both ways

It bothers me, because I like democracy. My side may nominate Trump. That would be a disaster for the GOP. But if he wins states with a majority of delegates, he deserves to be the nominee, like it or not.

I'll try to slow down for you. You are the one speculating on what might happen. What I am doing, is responding to what we know for certain, which is this: Bernie cleaned her clock in NH, yet he fell further behind. If that's not a rigged game, I don't know what is.

I have asked several times what the purpose of the superdelegates is. Neither you, nor Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound, have even tried to explain it to me. The reason why, is because you can't admit out loud that they exist because the Democratic party would rather undermine democracy to get an establishment candidate, then allow the democratic process to play out in a way that they don't happen to like. Kind of ironic, since Hilary keeps bleating about how unfair and rigged Wall Street is, how they are aligned against the little guy. What a crusader for the underdog she is.

The super delegates are crap, they exist simply to help those entrenched in the Democratic Party to keep control.

Before the first lever was pulled in the primary, Sanders was already behind 402 delegates based on who declared their backing for each candidate.

That is rediculous......

I'm pretty sure this is the same party that was pissed because Gore won the popular vote but still lost the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An honest man! And he's not a right-winger, either.

And in 2008, Hilary got more nationwide votes in the primaries. Obama won, because like what happened in 2000, the states he won had more delegates. There was talk of Hilary (mostly Bill) trying to get enough superdelegates at the convention to change the outcome, but it didn't happen.

I don't think Bernie will finish close enough to her, for this to matter. But as TDF says, when he has a huge deficit before it starts (just because his opponent is an insider), that changes who people donate to, it changes turnout and enthusiasm. It hurts Bernie in many ways. And everything about it, spits in the face of what this party claims to stand for.

Good post TDF.

Had lots of pinewood derby action the last few weeks, scouting at its most fun.

It bothers me, because I like democracy. My side may nominate Trump. That would be a disaster for the GOP. But if he wins states with a majority of delegates, he deserves to be the nominee, like it or not.

I'll try to slow down for you. You are the one speculating on what might happen. What I am doing, is responding to what we know for certain, which is this: Bernie cleaned her clock in NH, yet he fell further behind. If that's not a rigged game, I don't know what is.

I have asked several times what the purpose of the superdelegates is. Neither you, nor Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound, have even tried to explain it to me. The reason why, is because you can't admit out loud that they exist because the Democratic party would rather undermine democracy to get an establishment candidate, then allow the democratic process to play out in a way that they don't happen to like. Kind of ironic, since Hilary keeps bleating about how unfair and rigged Wall Street is, how they are aligned against the little guy. What a crusader for the underdog she is.

Jim why are you asking question from Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound or my self when you know you'll disagree with any answer given by any of us..

I have posted several links to stories made it clear where I stand ..

I am not a reregistered Dem I am an independent I am just amazed that Now Hillary might get the nod these Superdelegates are suddenly a threat to the Democrat process these Superdelegates have been around for the past 48 years .. and it hasn't happen yet not saying it won't but Historical precedence shows its not likely But yet we have had an election give away by a Supreme Court I find that much more troubling based on Historical precedence.. not which party won



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/10-reasons-delegates-will-choose-bernie-sanders-over-hillary-clinton

Jim why are you asking question from Spence, nor Paul, nor Rockhound or my self when you know you'll disagree with any answer given by any of us..

I have posted several links to stories made it clear where I stand ..

I am not a reregistered Dem I am an independent I am just amazed that Now Hillary might get the nod these Superdelegates are suddenly a threat to the Democrat process these Superdelegates have been around for the past 48 years .. and it hasn't happen yet not saying it won't but Historical precedence shows its not likely But yet we have had an election give away by a Supreme Court I find that much more troubling based on Historical precedence.. not which party won



http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/10-reasons-delegates-will-choose-bernie-sanders-over-hillary-clinton

Have you explained why the superdelegates exist in the first place? Given what's happening right now on the Democratic side, it seems like an obvious question. All I get for response, is anger and insults.

"But yet we have had an election give away by a Supreme Court I find that much more troubling"

Then maybe Al Gore shouldn't have sued.


"Now Hillary might get the nod these Superdelegates are suddenly a threat to the Democrat process "

Hilary beat Bernie by .00001% in Ioway, and she got creamed in NH, yet the DNC says that she is way ahead. Bernie won NH, yet he fell further behind at the end of the day. If that's consistent with Democracy, I fail to see how.

Like you, I doubt it will matter much, he's not polling well in upcoming states with a lot of delegates. But as TDF said, Bernie was way behind even before the first primary, because of what the superdelegates declared. That kind of thing matters, in terms of Bernie's ability to generate enthusiasm and to raise $$. I'm not sure how any rational person would disagree with that.

Great GOP debate last night by the way. Really nice group of candidates running for the nomination.

Hope to see some wet willies and maybe a good depantsing soon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was pathetic.

Spence, Hilary has 150 FBI agents doing an investoigation because of her actions. She denied that her husband cheated on her, and instead claimed that the GOP was framing him (that's REALLY having a clue). She claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and insisted we needed to invade. She claims they were broke when the left the White House. She claimed to have come under sniper fire (have you EVER addressed that one?). And she said all her deleted emails were personal, nothing related to work.

She doesn't engage in undignified wresting matches like the GOP. But if her behavior is superior by any standard, I'm not sure I see how. Grotesqueness comes in more than one form.

Collectively, we are too stupid to elect someone based just on their ideas. Because we are a Kardashian culture, there needs to be another angle (youth, attractive, minority, woman, blah, blah, blah). This is what you get. The 2008 election was the ultimate rejection of substance over style.

You plant potatoes, guess what? You get potatoes.

Jim I feel you might be a Sanders supporter soon. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, Hilary has 150 FBI agents doing an investoigation because of her actions.
Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.

She denied that her husband cheated on her, and instead claimed that the GOP was framing him (that's REALLY having a clue).
Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.

She claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and insisted we needed to invade.
Actually that's not true.

She claims they were broke when the left the White House.
Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.

She claimed to have come under sniper fire (have you EVER addressed that one?).
Yes.

And she said all her deleted emails were personal, nothing related to work.
Has this been shown to be wrong?

She doesn't engage in undignified wresting matches like the GOP. But if her behavior is superior by any standard, I'm not sure I see how. Grotesqueness comes in more than one form.
I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

Just saw a bumper sticker-

I trust gas station sushi more than Hillary
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim I feel you might be a Sanders supporter soon. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not going to happen, but the guy is honest. No deception, no word-smithing, what you see is what you get. They can all learn that from him.

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.


Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.


Actually that's not true.


Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.


Yes.


Has this been shown to be wrong?


I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.


"Actually that's not true. "

Oh, it's NOT TRUE that Hilary said there were WMDs in Iraq?


Text from her speech, video attached, where not only did she say he was rebuilding his WMDs, but that he also had ties to Al Queda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

You want to reconsider your statement that what I said is 'not true', you thoughtless apologist?

What the hell are you talking about?

As to the sniper thing, what was your defense, exactly? I know you didn't criticize her, because you cannot criticize her. Did someone in the GOP hypnotize her?

No idea why my text is showing up underlined, but you get the drift.

Not sure the 150 number is real but it looks like they're investigating the handling of information in general.


Well, he was lying to her about the affair at first. Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public when there's a vast right wing conspiracy trying to destroy you.


Actually that's not true.


Bad choice of words but in relative terms they likely were in debt, certainly with all the legal expenses to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy.


Yes.


Has this been shown to be wrong?


I think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results. The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all.

"Not sure the 150 number is real "

Now you are.

http://conservativeintel.com/2016/01/12/35478/

"Must be hard to have your marital issues litigated in public "

Then maybe it's not a good idea to (1) marry an immoral ghoul who can't keep his fly closed for 15 seconds, and (2) living your life in the public eye.

"to defend attacks from the vast right wing conspiracy. "

So there is a vast right wing conspiracy? Do you and she buy your tin-foil hats at the same store? What's your proof of this, exactly? IS she receiving treatment that's all that different from what, say, Sarah Palin received?


"Yes (I addressed the sniper claim)".

Can you refresh our memory, please? Did the vast right wing conspiracy set her up here too?

" think if you were to put anyone under the same scrutiny that the Clintons have been subjected to you'd likely get similar results"

Ahh, everyone does it, so it's OK. Unless you are a hypocrite then, you shouldn't be making any personal attacks against any conservatives, right? If it's OK for her to do it, it's OK for them too, right? And did George Bush have so much baggage? Nope.

"The fact that Clinton today is well positioned to be the next POTUS may just speak loudly to the fact that your laundry list of grievances really aren't anything at all"

Maybe. Or maybe it speaks to the fact that at the national level, your party has become almost satanic in terms of what it believes. Not long ago, partial birth abortion was shunned by most democrats. Hilary has no such quarrel with slaughtering a baby right up until the last second. Congrats. A serial liar, a ghoul who supports infanticide, a self described "feminist" who nonetheless attacks all the women who claim to have been abused by her husband. Yuck.

"Actually that's not true. "

Oh, it's NOT TRUE that Hilary said there were WMDs in Iraq?


Text from her speech, video attached, where not only did she say he was rebuilding his WMDs, but that he also had ties to Al Queda.
Actually you said she insisted we needed to invade. Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action. As to her statements about WMD or links to al Qaeda, I'd note the obvious, that she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war.

Actually you said she insisted we needed to invade. Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action. As to her statements about WMD or links to al Qaeda, I'd note the obvious, that she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war.

She said "any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast mine WITH CONVICTION"

Conviction means, she is "convinced" that it's the necessary thing to do, it means she has no doubts about what needs to be done.

How can you type these things? Do even you believe what you post?

"Clinton was very clear that she didn't feel the situation warranted unilateral action"

Then good for her, because it wasn't unilateral. How many countries had troops there?

"she was being briefed by the same people who misled the President because they had already decided to go to war"

The that necessarily means that you think Bush was no more at-fault than she was. That, or you are a hypocrite (and we know which it is). It's also worth noting that the group who misled Bush and Clinton, was partially led by the liberal's new hero, Colin Powell. Your side doesn't hold it against him, that he sold the war to the UN, and to the world. I wonder why that is?

Good lord. Spence, believe me, your head won't explode if you criticize her when she deserves it. I cannot believe what a pathetic job Bush did responding to Hurricane Katrina. There. See? I didn't explode or get struck by lightning. You're a very smart guy, you can figure out how to think for yourself and show a speck of objectivity once in a while.

Now, can you tell me why your side has these super-delegates? What purpose do they serve?

You also chose to ignore my request for your defense of her sniper claims.

I just read that the old coot has a 3 point lead nationally over Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just read that the old coot has a 3 point lead nationally over Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Giddayup!! :lama: