I'm crushed......Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Printable View
I'm crushed......Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Ahh that's it now appealing to the Mods is it:rofl: , has the penny not dropped yet as to just why I have not posted one single thing untoward against Bernie Sanders? , cos unlike you I am not Across the board against the Dems as you are against the republicans , only against Hilarious being a suitable candidate for her party :) not quite sure here but I think the same goes for RP.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
I seriously suggest you take a trip down to the opticians if you are trying to suggest that its only RP and I on TD who are casting aspersions against Hilarious's credibility to go all the way and be POTUS :smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
I, for one, think Hillary is not worthy to be president. She spins the truth more than her so called husband. Snub, don't bother replying since I already know how you feel by sending me the red, you demotard dick.
What has been debunked? Hillary signing off on selling uranium to Russia after Bill gets a $500,000 dollar payday from the same co. In Russia. Hillary kicking out the travel agency at the White House to give their buddies the job, then being forced to reinstate the former agency, Bill pardoning their drug dealing buddiesthe dissapearance and recovery of the Rose law firm scandles, which of the many scandles have been debunked Snubbles?Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
I detect the distinct odour of another red on the way:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65What has been debunked? Hillary signing off on selling uranium to Russia after Bill gets a $500,000 dollar payday from the same co. In Russia. Hillary kicking out the travel agency at the White House to give their buddies the job, then being forced to reinstate the former agency, Bill pardoning their drug dealing buddiesthe dissapearance and recovery of the Rose law firm scandles, which of the many scandles have been debunked Snubbles?Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoiAhh that's it now appealing to the Mods is it:rofl: , has the penny not dropped yet as to just why I have not posted one single thing untoward against Bernie Sanders? , cos unlike you I am not Across the board against the Dems as you are against the republicans , only against Hilarious being a suitable candidate for her party :) not quite sure here but I think the same goes for RP.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
You are right although I don't think America is ready for a socialist president, to many people who love their freedom.you also have to realize in the minds of Harry and Snubbles if you oppose one democratic point then you give 100%support to the Republicans in their minds there is no such thing as an independent.
Clearly those same Americans don't understand the term "socialist" in the context of Sanders.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
The sources credibility will be in the facts or non facts of there videos or articles, something you continually avoid, why do you refuse to address the issues point by point?
Once again, beware of the words ending in "-ist" as they are too broad in today's complex world.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntRobertson
I have not delved into the details of how "free Uni" will be paid for under Sander's plan.
I will check it out later.
If such a thing were to happen - and I don't think it will - only the top 2-3% should get a "free" education, and the rest should not attend university or pay for it themselves.
Take X amount of young adults and older adults that will attend university multiplied by 4 years of tuition.
= how much?
A staggering number? I will try to find out later today.
Yes, I do think that hundreds of millions are wasted on the Pentagon and MIC corporations and the overseas military adventures. Taking some or most of these funds and funding education AND vocational training for good performing students would be much better for society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Rules,rules the rules also state no personal attacks, how often do you see that enforced?Becides when I post an opinion piece it is because I agree with the opinion so it is also my opinion stated better than I could have stated it.
If there was any credible evidence why was he never charged or prosecuted? The Bush administration tried and failed to find any evidence. Your bogus conspiracy sites are just a laughable joke like yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
There are no facts you moron. This is the last time I am going to waste my time responding on this dead horse issue.
Oh good so you admit that you are a moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
Look, electing Hillery as POTUS would simply be akin to the US throwing in the towel. It mustn't happen.
So you call stating things that you disagree with are derailing this thread, then again you did tell me one time you never read anything contrary to your socialistic beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Charged or prosecuted for what? Which of the many issues are you responding to?the issues I have posted up concern he and she.
Hillary had nothing to do with the Uranium deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Shit like that goes on every day, it's low level stuff.
As does Clinton doing speeches, him and Condi and the likes are forever doing speeches all over the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
No I admit to nothing except not being skilled at writing, never desired to be a journalist.
I am sure you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davis KnowltonI'm crushed......Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
The only thing they could ever nail Capone on was an income tax rap , what does that prove?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Charged or prosecuted for what? Which of the many issues are you responding to?the issues I have posted up concern he and she.
On the morning of her 22nd birthday, Wellesley College student Hannah Lindow woke up under a framed TIME magazine cover of Hillary Clinton, opened her dorm room door, papered with Clinton stickers and walked to the political science department, where Clinton’s Wellesley senior thesis hangs next to her portrait. The president of Wellesley Students for Hillary is on a mission to convince other Wellesley students “just how kickass” Clinton is.
“She’s a bad bitch. She doesn’t apologize,” Lindow says. Her friend, Lily Mohr, an enthusiastic first-year, agrees. “We have this saying, ‘Wellesley women who will,’” Mohr says. “Hillary is the Wellesley woman who did.”
There may not be a better home for Clinton’s die-hard fans than her alma mater, a private women’s college in Massachusetts. And yet even here, Lindow has her work cut out for her. Like many other college campuses in America, Wellesley students have been feeling the Bern.
In fact, outside of the Lindow’s Wellesley Students for Hillary group, many women who support Clinton on campus tend to keep it to themselves, as if voting for their Wellesley sister has become taboo. In a casual conversation with a group of eight Clinton supporters, only one said she had ever posted anything positive on social media in support of her— the other seven said it wasn’t worth the blowback online. One young woman told the group she feared retribution when a friend tweeted a picture of her at a Hillary event.
That’s because supporting Bernie Sanders has become a shorthand for a progressive allegiance that is overwhelmingly popular among the younger generation. Exit polls in neighboring New Hampshire showed 82% of Democratic women under 30 backed Sanders, while 56% of women over 45 backed Clinton.
Those poll numbers show a generational divide among liberal women that suggests a sea change in feminist thought. For many older feminists, it seems only natural to support the most viable female presidential candidate to ever get this far, especially after the disappointment of the 2008 primary. But younger feminists are more likely to eschew traditional feminism in favor of “intersectionality“– the idea that social identities like race, gender and class are so intertwined that it’s impossible to prioritize one lens over another. In other words, a middle-class straight white woman would have very different concerns than a poor trans woman of color, and it’s unfair to assume that both would have the same priorities just because they’re women. And some young feminists say that in this context, Clinton’s gender seems less important than all the other ways she is privileged.
As a result, this Democratic primary battle has become for some a referendum on the future 21st century feminism. In a campus climate dominated by identity politics, voting along identity lines alone is now considered taboo. Given this shift, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Clinton can’t count on young feminists to support her just because she’s a woman, especially since Sanders’s rhetoric appeals to many young women who are concerned with issues of class. And the old guard of feminist icons, brought in by Clinton to shore up her support among women, has not been helpful. Fellow Wellesley alumna and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told New Hampshire voters that there’s “a special place in hell” for women who don’t support other women—a line she’s used in other speeches for decades. Then Gloria Steinem suggested young women were backing Sanders because “the boys are with Bernie.” (Both have since apologized.)
On the other side of the divide, former Republican candidate Carly Fiorina told young women as she suspended her own campaign to “not listen to anyone who says you have to vote a certain way or for a certain candidate because you’re a woman. That is not feminism.” And Clinton herself addressed this question in the Democratic debate Thursday night, backing away from the idea that women should get in line for a female candidate. “We need to empower everyone, women and men, to make the best decisions in their minds that they can make,” she said. “That’s what I’ve always stood for.”
“It’s like the tension you can often see between daughters and their mothers,” says Roxanne Euben, who teaches feminist political theory at Wellesley. “Daughters are saying ‘just because you say this is what this means to be a committed feminist, doesn’t mean I’m going to do this.’” There’s nothing young feminists hate more than being told what gender equality should look like, and Euben notes that the one consistent feature of feminism for the last century is that it’s always been up for debate.
Several patterns emerged in dozens of interviews with Wellesley students who support both candidates. No matter whom they support, students want to see a female president and admire Hillary Clinton as an icon. But both Sanders and Clinton supporters say that gender has little to do with their decision, and they resent the implication that it might. Young Sanders supporters buck against the notion that they “should” be supporting the female candidate, and Clinton supporters reject the idea that they’re only supporting her because she’s a woman.
Over and over, Wellesley students reiterated that intersectionality, not feminism, is their priority. For Sanders supporters, the Senator’s policies on poverty and inequality are more important than the symbolic win of seeing a woman president.For Clinton supporters, her practical agenda and myriad accomplishments—which her supporters say have often benefited poor women and people of color—are more appealing than her gender.
Yet Sanders appears to have the upper hand so far. “The only person who’s addressing intersectionality is Bernie Sanders,” says Katherine Gao, a first-year, noting that she sees a “generational divide” about the future of feminism. “Women’s rights is an important issue to me, but it’s not the most important issue to me,” agreed first year Netanya Perluss.
That shift has had a chilling effect on what might have been a loud-and-proud campaign to make a Wellesley sister the leader of the free world. Professor Euben says she saw more T-shirts and campaign stickers when Hillary was running against Obama in 2008 than she does now, and speculates that Sanders’s full-throated progressivism could make Clinton’s moderation seem anemic by comparison. “Saying you’re for Bernie Sanders is also a way of performing your progressivism,” she says. “Moderation has never been sexy— only the Ancient Greeks really liked moderation.”
Perhaps most striking was the enthusiasm gap on campus. While Wellesley students who support Bernie Sanders were eager to discuss their thoughts on the election, crowding around the interview table in pairs of twos and threes, Clinton supporters were considerably more uncertain, even reluctant, to admit she’d get their vote. Besides the two dozen vocal Hillary fans attending Lindow’s well-organized meetings, many students mumbled their support, others looked discreetly around before saying they’re rooting for her. To loudly support Clinton, even on a campus like Wellesley, seemed like a brave choice.
It’s not that they’re afraid of the Bernie Sanders supporters on campus. Everyone agrees that the conversation on campus is remarkably civil and supportive (the two groups watched the New Hampshire returns together, along with a fledgeling Wellesley for Rubio group,) and that any online harassment is coming from outside the Wellesley community. Still, students on both sides described a pervasive sense that support for Sanders is both cooler and morally superior than support for Hillary.
That bothers Lindow, who helped design sweatshirts emblazoned with the famous picture of Clinton checking her blackberry. “Hillary is the grandma who says ‘you can have one cookie, not two’ and Bernie is the grandpa who says ‘we can all have ice cream for dinner,’” she says, describing why some of her peers don’t get excited about her. “I don’t think she should have to be cool, and it bothers me that she has to be cool.”
Still, Hillary supporters are on the defensive, even at a campus like Wellesley. “People are apologetically Hillary supporters,” says Sabina Unni, a first-year student who supports Hillary. “Sometimes I feel like I’m always making excuses for her,” says Luci Navas-Sharry.
Others said supporting Clinton made them feel just as vulnerable to criticism as the candidate herself. “You’re opening yourself up to a lot of scrutiny,” says Alex Otero, a first-year student. “You’re taking on the burden of scrutiny that Hillary takes on when she runs for President.”
Many of the female students who support Bernie Sanders acknowledge they’ve never experienced gender discrimination the way Clinton has. “For my grandma, my mom, my aunt, having a woman president is really important,” says Clare Salerno, a sophomore Sanders supporter. “I haven’t been in the workplace, I haven’t really felt that.”
Salerno is one of the most enthusiastic Sanders supporters, but she says there’s a part of her excitement that’s bittersweet. “Sometimes part of me is kind of sad that he’s running,” she says. “Because before, I was excited about voting for Hillary.”
Clinton and Sanders Exposed a Feminist Divide at Wellesley
Well would you believe it, I just learned that "not being skilled at writing" is a euphemism for "I write like a dyslexic nine year old".Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
No I admit to nothing except not being skilled at writing, never desired to be a journalist.
^^
I also would like to see a female president but there are more important things to consider at this point in time. Our race and our gender come in second to the massive problems we face with providing a decent future for all young Americans.
I would suggest you read the New York Times article in my post 4012 and the New York Post article in my post 4013 as it would appear that their opinions differ to yours ,of course you have firm evidence to back your opinion up ,thank you in advance for posting it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaHillary had nothing to do with the Uranium deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Shit like that goes on every day, it's low level stuff.
As does Clinton doing speeches, him and Condi and the likes are forever doing speeches all over the world.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Selling US Uranium to the Russians is a low leve deal and you think Hillary had nothing to do with it yet she had to sign off for it to go through. To many things tied to Hillary, Bill, and there charity to be overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaHillary had nothing to do with the Uranium deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Shit like that goes on every day, it's low level stuff.
As does Clinton doing speeches, him and Condi and the likes are forever doing speeches all over the world.
Why is there importance in having a female president when there are so many critical issues facing the U.S.?Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoiI would suggest you read the New York Times article in my post 4012 and the New York Post article in my post 4013 as it would appear that their opinions differ to yours ,of course you have firm evidence to back your opinion up ,thank you in advance for posting it :)Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaHillary had nothing to do with the Uranium deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Shit like that goes on every day, it's low level stuff.
As does Clinton doing speeches, him and Condi and the likes are forever doing speeches all over the world.
No he does not have firm evidence he never does, he will resort to either attacking you or the news papers.
RP please be patient Harry's going to bring forth evidence that she had SFA to do with the Uranium deal , ain't that right Harry ?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65Selling US Uranium to the Russians is a low level deal and you think Hillary had nothing to do with it yet she had to sign off for it to go through. Too many things tied to Hillary, Bill, and there charity to be overlooked.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaHillary had nothing to do with the Uranium deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Shit like that goes on every day, it's low level stuff.
As does Clinton doing speeches, him and Condi and the likes are forever doing speeches all over the world.
That's exactly what misskit just said.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65Why is there importance in having a female president when there are so many critical issues facing the U.S.?Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Why can you not read. :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Due too democratic super delegates Bernie also lost the majority of delegates from New Hampshire.
It's a shame that one has to waste one's time posting FACTS to debunk the rubbish you two post, but since there's more than one of you idiots I'll post more than the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
So now we've laid that Clinton Cash bollocks to rest, you can stop trying to spin your little fairy story as facts.Quote:
The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.
A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).
In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.
What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.
What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.
What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.
Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.
:rofl:
Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider
You may find this interesting RP (the remarks on it too) Blog: Sanders supporters discovering superdelegates rigged against themQuote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Due too democratic super delegates Bernie also lost the majority of delegates from New Hampshire.
Saw this earlier and the funny headline caught my eye.
State Republican Party launches online petition supporting … Bernie Sanders
MANCHESTER, N.H. -
The state Republican Party on Monday launched an online petition urging the state Democratic Party's superdelegates to “listen to their constituents” and support New Hampshire primary winner Bernie Sanders at the party’s national convention.
Remainder of item
Updated: State Republican Party launches online petition supporting ? Bernie Sanders | Politics - Home
American Thinker? American Idiot is more like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
An interesting turn of phrase. Do you consider the teachings of your lord and saviour Jesus Christ to be 'socialistic' and if not, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing :) and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient :)Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaIt's a shame that one has to waste one's time posting FACTS to debunk the rubbish you two post, but since there's more than one of you idiots I'll post more than the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
So now we've laid that Clinton Cash bollocks to rest, you can stop trying to spin your little fairy story as facts.Quote:
The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.
A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).
In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.
What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.
What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.
What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.
Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.
:rofl:
Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider
That article is a year old. What investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?
So the NYT and NYP has issued a public apology for dragging her name through the shit then? , and just who was responsible for not disclosing donations from Uranium One thus breaking Hilarious's agreement ? as this was not disclosed in your article .Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaThat article is a year old. What investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?
What Investigations Harry ? , take your pick :smileylaughing: Articles: Three Strikes and You're Out, Hillary Oh what a tangled web she weaves :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaThat article is a year old. What investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?
The fact is she did not disclose the donation,and that is not the only donation not reported.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracudaThat article is a year old. What investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?