A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation...
 

Democrats Interrupt Party Chair to Demand More Presidential Debates

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ential-debates

Say what you will about the Republican debates thus far... at least they have debates.

Of course, Hillary might be too busy circling the wagons in response to the five separate investigations being conducted of her email scandal. Oh, and she is planning to be more spontaneous and open. Nothing like planning spontaneity for authenticity.

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

Hillary insists, "I am a real person..."

please, please don't let her win.

Guess what? We agree on that sentiment. Have a good day...

oh, i sure will now that i saw what you quoted and said was the best ever post.
that's rich, coming from someone also posting in this room. had him on ignore, so never saw what he wrote til just now.
appreciate it.
and...well, his description is wrong.
steve can tell you, or chuck, or gbbob, or brian spencer etc, etc.

i hope you have a great day.
and remember that jesus loves you.

I did not get the impression that he knew you or put any belief in his description. It was his second paragraph that made me laugh.

I do not know why it is 90% liberal around here. An almost monolithic dedication to all things liberal/progressive/socialist. Apparently he made a similar observation.

Jesus loves you too.

How bout this possibility:D...9 of 10 emails i get on politics are anti-Obama...
Not this nightmare scenario huh:eek:


HOW SWEET IT IS NOW KNOWING THAT REPUBLICAN PRICKS ARE LYING AWAKE AT NIGHT, SWEATING & WORRYING ABOUT A "THIRD TERM" FOR THE "MUSLIM" !!!

----


-


I "Googled" this fact, and apparently it is a fact. He can serve if he hasn't been elected.

Heartburn, gas, and parnoia to boot. Who dreams up these potential nightmares?




I'm not sure about the premiss but it is a scary thought






Here's something to give us all a sleepless night or two . . . . . .
The Facts:
· Obama can run as Vice President on the Biden-Obama ticket in 2016, but Obama cannot be “elected” for a 3 rd term as President.

· Obama can assume the Presidency if Biden dies or resigns at any time after the inauguration. Obama would become President
because he would not be “elected” to the office

· Joe Biden was born November 20, 1942 and he will be 74 prior to the inauguration in January 2017.

· Obama can retain control over the Dem party and its funds until 2020.

· A Biden-Obama ticket can win in 2016 if the Dem loyalties are unified and the GOP loyalties are split .

Why does this matter:

1. The Dems would retain control of the government bureaucracy until 2020

2. The Dems would retain Veto power over the Congress

3. The Dems would retain control of the Attorney General’s office and define what is prosecuted and what is not

4. The Dems would retain control over the appointments of Federal judges

5. The Dems would be in a position to replace up to 2 or 3 of the Supreme Court Justices

6. The Dems would use Executive Orders to make temporary laws and protect progressive principles

7. The Dems would protect Obamacare, EPA overreach, progressive moves to socialism, disintegration of the military, illegal imigration, deficit spending, etc.

8. The President would pardon all of the Dems who could be prosecuted if a Repub is elected later

9. The Federal bureaucracy would be used to further Dem ideals, ability to stay in power, and stifle opposing movements

10. Other?

it's an inside joke...

Lol, gr.

I have never understood why some are so concerned about how often someone posts, or what room.
This is one of two sites I post on. It has rooms, some I visit, some i don't. Same as everyone else I'd wager.
Strange.....

One of the things I like about the Politics Board on this site is that it has a mix of political spectrums posting. Most sites eventually end up with commenters who all lean the same way, and that gets boring to follow.

But yeah, I also can't find the energy to care who posts where and how often. That said, if some folk get something out of getting outraged about it, that's cool. If they have always aspired to being a MSMG (Middle School Mean Girl), far be it from me to stomp on their dreams. ;)

:D
i like that 'msmg' acronym.

Huma (referring to Hill in an email): "She's often confused."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r...ften-confused/

Hillary explains, "I come from the 60s."
:D

her comments at the debate, invoking 9-11 as defense for taking wall street money, was beyond the pale.
her husband signed the repeal of glass/steagall, and they love giving her funds..
a huge weak point for her.

Um, how about the omission of anything similar to the term "Islamic Terrorism" when the Paris was the day before?

And guess what - they (the Democratic leadership, especially Debbie Wasserman Shultz) are taking great pains to hide these debates by putting them on a weekend when many will not see them.

They are all in on protecting Hillary. And she needs the protection.

She has not had a real question in forever. A glass house in fear of pebbles, let alone the boulders that are out there.

there's been some criticisms of DWS, with good reason. but not nearly as much as one would expect, given the stakes.

You're right. But once they co-opted the press, they were able to mute a lot of that.

co-opt the press?
the criticism i saw was from the press, else i wouldn't have known of any criticisms. now, the dem party might be closemouthed about it, thus hindering any further reporting. stand united and all that rot.

He's baaaaack and given his track record of being woefully wrong in backing the presidential candidates I guess Hillary is the lock of the century. And that really sucks:(

Why are the relatives of the Benghazi victims all lying about me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAUDS-aLGjI

Speaking as someone living in NYC during that time, there was a lot of fear in the aftermath that the big financial firms were all going to pick up and move someplace far away from NYC. I get what Clinton was trying to say, which was that it was her job as a Senator representing NY State to do what was best for the state, which was keeping those firms based in the city. Of course, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, getting campaign donations from Wall Street is incredibly bad PR, but in 2001 the city was really afraid that it's place as the financial capital of the world was over.

I'm not the biggest fan of PolitiFact, but this is a pretty good brief look at Glass-Steagall and the claim that its repeal was the cause of the recession. (It wasn't: the state of affairs that led to the collapse had been building since the 1970s):

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ng-do-financi/

Ultimately, the President has really no control over the economy. Now, things like lying the nation into a trillion dollar war in the Middle East, that he does.

Talking to sound tough and actually sending men and women off to war (without paying for it) are two different things. The war was started in 2003.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1..._n_773038.html

The Resolution was passed in October, 2002. All the Dem legislators in the video, except Nancy Pelosi, voted yea.

How many GOP legislators voted for the resolution? Or do they not count?

They all count. The point is that it wasn't a strictly partisan vote, unlike, say, the "affordable" care act.

Could use lesson in self-awareness

Time to shore up Hillary.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ned-dem-debate

This is why I google anything Joeydb quotes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clint...cietyquote.asp


Which is not to say the sentiment is necessarily bad. At least, not according to this guy:

Breaking
 

Tom DeLay: The Feds are ready to indict Clinton:

>>>"They're ready to recommend an indictment, and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public. So one way or another, either she's going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign,” he told the conservative news outlet. “One way or another, she's going to have to face these charges."<<<

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...indict-clinton

Ruh Roh

if anyone would know about investigations and charges, i guess it would be tom delay.
and a grand jury would have to recommend charges.

Hillary Clinton on Wall Street, Paid Speeches:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHcwObLQem4

Oh, really?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...ons-in/2264074

:$:

'As Sanders has put her on the defensive about her Wall Street contributions, Clinton has responded that the campaign money does not influence her approach to regulating the financial industry.'

bullshit


ok, this topic made me wonder about other candidates, so I did a search of 'wall street donations candidates'

here's the first item on the list, with a chart of who got what....

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-...45726933.html#

amazing.

That's interesting. The TBT article reports that Clinton took in $21.4M of her total $157.8M from "donors at hedge funds, banks, insurance companies and other financial-services firms," while the Yahoo piece reports $6.3M of $97.8M. That's a strong December push.

I wonder how they feel about giving a fortune to jeb*? not a very good roi.

Could we really see a perp walk, live on TV, handcuffs and all? :eek: