Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the fact she was fired from the watergate investigation for lying and falsifying evidence

That is an outright lie.

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Which one is Hillary?

The black one - obvious, really . . . just ask a republican

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Indeed, it is not a well documented fact. It is a discredited myth. Either you have some proof, or you don't.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Nothing about being sexists but about the fact she is willing to do anything to satisfy her quest for power, no different than many male politicians.

Yet you use this particular point to condem Clinton. Sexist.

The rest is off topic blather I won't be commenting on.

You call it blather because you do not want to acknowledge the facts, feminist want to play in the big boys game but they want special concessions to do it.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You call it blather because you do not want to acknowledge the facts, feminist want to play in the big boys game but they want special concessions to do it.

You. Big boy. Facts.

Start your own thread for your anti-feminist rants. This is thread is about a presidential election.

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Indeed, it is not a well documented fact. It is a discredited myth. Either you have some proof, or you don't.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Nothing about being sexists but about the fact she is willing to do anything to satisfy her quest for power, no different than many male politicians.

Yet you use this particular point to condem Clinton. Sexist.

The rest is off topic blather I won't be commenting on.

Times-Union readers want to know:
An email says that Hillary Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was fired for lying and being unethical when she was a 27-year-old working on the Watergate investigation. Is this true?

The viral email is mainly derived from a column published on March 31, 2008, by Dan Calabrese, founder of North Star Writers Group, according to fact-finder TruthOrFiction.com. North Star was a newspaper syndicate that provided services until early 2012.

Calabrese’s information came from Democrat Jerry Zeifman, a counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Clinton on the Watergate investigation. Zeifman’s 2006 book, “Hillary’s Pursuit of Power,” states that she “… engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

On his now-shuttered website, Zeifman said, “Hillary Clinton is ethically unfit to be either a senator or president — and if she were to become president, the last vestiges of the traditional moral authority of the party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson will be destroyed.”

Specifically, Zeifman contends that Rodham and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office to bolster the chances of Sen. Ted Kennedy or another Democrat being elected president.

Zeifman said that in 1974 a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “… her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”

Zeifman charges that Rodham regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, a violation of House rules.

Hillary Rodham’s conduct, according to Zeifman, also was the result of not wanting Nixon to face an impeachment trial because Democrats worried that Nixon might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy.

Zeifman — ironically, a consultant to a member of the Judiciary Committee that impeached President Bill Clinton — said Democrats feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand. Hunt, Zeifman said, might report on his knowledge of nefarious activities in the Kennedy administration “including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.”

Zeifman also asserts that Rodham joined Burke Marshall, Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair and Rodham’s former law professor; special counsel John Doar; and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House counsel) Bernard Nussbaum in trying to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.

In order to pull this off, Zeifman said that Rodham wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents.

After the Nixon impeachment investigation was finished, Zeifman fired Rodham and said he refused to give her a letter of recommendation.

According to the Calabrese column as reported by TruthOrFiction.com, Zeifman said he regrets not reporting Rodham to the appropriate bar association.

So what are we to make of all this? Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true, but it makes it difficult to arrive at the truth.

In addition, neither Rumors, hoaxes, and urband legends - TruthorFiction.com nor we could find any response from Hillary Clinton to Zeifman’s book or to his accusations.

Carole Fader: (904) 359-4635

And how is this being sexist.

^That does not constitute proof of anything. It is asking for clarification.

On the previous page is a link debunking the above mentioned email. Says Zeifman was in no position of authority to fire Clinton.

FALSE

Originally Posted by misskit

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You call it blather because you do not want to acknowledge the facts, feminist want to play in the big boys game but they want special concessions to do it.

You. Big boy. Facts.

Start your own thread for your anti-feminist rants. This is thread is about a presidential election.

And my post is about the leading democratic contender in a presidential election.

How am I being anti feminists, because I am not afraid to present the facts that you as a liberal woman don't care to see.

^ Good grief. Whatever.

Originally Posted by misskit

^That does not constitute proof of anything. It is asking for clarification.

On the previous page is a link debunking the above mentioned email. Says Zeifman was in no position of authority to fire Clinton.

FALSE

The post is the clarification being asked for.

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Good grief. Whatever.

Good grief.what ever. So your afraid to post a valid rebuttal.

Originally Posted by misskit

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Are you only speculating or do you have proof.

Please tell me what you would like to have proof of. Demographics? Who hates Clinton? Women offended by sexist strikes at Clinton? Republican gerrymandering? Be more specific.

Only the old white mails

Originally Posted by RPETER65

On his now-shuttered website

Your so called source.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The post is the clarification being asked for.

Not even close. Go back and read the post I made and follow those links. That is where the truth is. She was not fired and she did not fabricate anything. No wonder how much your polluted right wing mind may want it to be true it simply is not.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by misskit

^That does not constitute proof of anything. It is asking for clarification.

On the previous page is a link debunking the above mentioned email. Says Zeifman was in no position of authority to fire Clinton.

FALSE

The post is the clarification being asked for.

Sorry, the post was a reply to someone asking for clarification, but didn't get any.

"Calabrese’s interview with Zeifman has been published around the Internet and repeated by pundits such as Rush Limbaugh and Neil Boortz. But there is nothing to out-and-out confirm Zeifman’s rendition."

Bsnubs link states Zeifman was not in a position of authority to fire Clinton.

^ Rpetey is a lot like Booners in that he gets carried away and cut and pastes articles without reading or fully comprehending the gist.

Footnote: He also posts up articles without links. That is a violation of forum rules.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Good grief. Whatever.

Good grief.what ever. So your afraid to post a valid rebuttal.

You do not post a rebuttal to outright lies.

You discredit them.

For example, the right wing fairy tale you posted has no basis in fact, and the person who wrote it (in his "diary") never had any authority to fire her.

Therefore when he said he fired her, he is lying.

This has been posted before and debunked before.

Therefore by posting it again, you too are lying.

Although in your case, I think think it's just that you're too simple to understand that some Hillarry-hatin' republican could tell lies.

Maybe you should go over some of Carson's stuff.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

On his now-shuttered website

Your so called source.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The post is the clarification being asked for.

Not even close. Go back and read the post I made and follow those links. That is where the truth is. She was not fired and she did not fabricate anything. No wonder how much your polluted right wing mind may want it to be true it simply is not.

I find it hard to take the liberal leaning snopes serious.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Good grief. Whatever.

Good grief.what ever. So your afraid to post a valid rebuttal.

You do not post a rebuttal to outright lies.

You discredit them.

For example, the right wing fairy tale you posted has no basis in fact, and the person who wrote it (in his "diary") never had any authority to fire her.

Therefore when he said he fired her, he is lying.

This has been posted before and debunked before.

Therefore by posting it again, you too are lying.

Although in your case, I think think it's just that you're too simple to understand that some Hillarry-hatin' republican could tell lies.

Maybe you should go over some of Carson's stuff.

Simple? Only in your and your liberal buddies minds, but are they lies did,she lie and fabricate evidence I read opinions as to both sides. The getting fired issue is not the real issue the lying and fabricating is the important issue, I am not sure I can believe your sources anymore than you can believe mine.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Good grief. Whatever.

Good grief.what ever. So your afraid to post a valid rebuttal.

You do not post a rebuttal to outright lies.

You discredit them.

For example, the right wing fairy tale you posted has no basis in fact, and the person who wrote it (in his "diary") never had any authority to fire her.

Therefore when he said he fired her, he is lying.

This has been posted before and debunked before.

Therefore by posting it again, you too are lying.

Although in your case, I think think it's just that you're too simple to understand that some Hillarry-hatin' republican could tell lies.

Maybe you should go over some of Carson's stuff.

As I have said before I do not follow these threads 24/7as you seem to and I missed the previous discussion on this issue, but if you feel you have to accuse me of lying have at it, the man wrote it in his book.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Rpetey is a lot like Booners in that he gets carried away and cut and pastes articles without reading or fully comprehending the gist.

Footnote: He also posts up articles without links. That is a violation of forum rules.

But who gets jailed.Was it for violating rules?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I find it hard to take the liberal leaning snopes serious.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, right?

Originally Posted by slackula

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I find it hard to take the liberal leaning snopes serious.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, right?

Reality has a turn against old geezers and religion.

Originally Posted by longway

Shillary uses her sex as her one of her main pitches - vote for me because i am a woman. Is that not inherently sexist?

Her pitch is "Clearly I'm not asking people to vote for me simply because I'm a woman," I'm asking people to vote for me on the merits. And I think one of the merits is I am a woman and I can bring those views and perspectives to the White House."

I don't see sexism in that. She pushes agenda important to women that many men don't see as important.

Originally Posted by longway

Male politicians would be villified and become unelectable if their thirst for power was as obvious as Shillary's

No, they absolutely are not. Male politicians who thirst for power are held in high esteem. The more powerful they seem, the better people like them.

Take Donald Trump for instance. He has enormous power and seeks more in becoming president. His thirst for winning and power is almost comical it is so obvious.


snigger

Another thing quite obvious, is Clinton is said to be too old to be president by her detractors. She's a year younger than Trump. Women have an expiry date when seeking office that men don't have. Not sexist?

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm saying this from a woman's viewpoint and women are more than half the voters in the US.

Originally Posted by longway

the constant use of sexist/ racist/ bigot and the sheer hypocrisy of its use us breeding a great deal of resentment.

More whining from a conservative victim living in a fact-free bubble.