Perpetual Hildebeast: Hillary fakes Southern drawl and accent again.
Video at link:
Clinton's Southern strategy? Hillary fakes her accent for local crowd | Washington Examiner
Printable View
Perpetual Hildebeast: Hillary fakes Southern drawl and accent again.
Video at link:
Clinton's Southern strategy? Hillary fakes her accent for local crowd | Washington Examiner
Booners would have said "Y'all have to read this".Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
:rofl:
Well ,here we go... Show time. :chitown:
Joe's goan' give it a go... Let the games begin!
Joe Biden to enter presidential race, Fox News reports
The Wrap JORDAN CHARITON Oct 19th 2015 3:26PM
Joe Biden to enter presidential race, Fox News reports - AOL
Heads up Hill n Bill, time to get to work.
Ohh... :confused: But, of course, Fox always lies... so, False Alarm, eh?
She's from Chicago, but has lived in Arkansas . . . it's still cringeworthyQuote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
. . . as do all Californians :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Maybe. Joe's only meeting with his probable campaign staff. No decision made yet. October end is deadline to register as candidate so time is short.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
I can't see him running with any real hope of winning but politicians are weird so he may give it a go if he can get enough financial support.
Fox are desperate for him to run. He's the only one whose numbers are anywhere near her.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
But it won't make any difference.
Did you take her seriously Milky?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
Oh, it always makes a difference. It’s all about the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
The more “players” in the primary the more campaigning and expenditures necessary to secure the nomination. The more diluted are the coffers for the Presidential Election.
And the Presidential Election is, in a word, "Expensive".
The $5 billion presidential campaign? | TheHill
The 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion, according to top fundraisers and bundlers who are already predicting it will more than double the 2012 campaign’s price tag.
Behind-the-scenes jockeying to raise big bucks from bundlers connected to super-PACs and third-party groups is well underway, even with no top-tier candidates officially in the race.
Potential candidates with proven fundraising prowess, such as 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, are throwing political elbows at each other to secure donors’ money at an early stage in the race.
And then there’s Hillary Clinton. In private conversations, allies to the former secretary of State are predicting that the campaign totals on their end alone might surpass $1.5 billion and go as high as $2 billion.
As far as Fox - desperate - no.
NBC ABC Fox News ratings winners - Orlando Sentinel
Fox News Channel, NBC and ABC can claim wins in the latest batch of ratings.
For the February ratings period, Fox News was the most-watched channel in prime time in all of cable. Fox News' top performers were "The O'Reilly Factor" with nearly 3 million viewers and "The Kelly File" with 2.3 million.
The audiences were far bigger last week for the three evening broadcasts on ABC, CBS and NBC. They're often written off as old-fashioned telecasts, but they're still reaching substantial audiences.
Fox isn't desperate, no need to be - but, they will cheer on anything they can report on as long as it is political. Really don't mean a hill of beans to them, democrat or republican. Their platform, Republican=Good, Democrat=Bad, works very well for them. But, they really don't care... provided in keeps their viewer numbers up and they can charge more for their advertising. They are, after all, a business, a lets make more money business.
Now Jim Webb is talking about running as an Independent.
It might make a difference to the spend, but it won't stop her getting nominated.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
Indictment might.
:)
First he was a Republican for a very long time, then he wanted to get into office so switched to the Democratic party and now he wants the same thing and wants to go Independent . . . . reminds me of a windsockQuote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
The freaky Democrat
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYhWdQfwigU
. . . and just in case any Republicans want to mess with this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzU6fMnyJBQ
Be afraid, be very afraid
is this the same bloke :) - just lost one election
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
^
So glad that prick is gone.
I resemble your entire post ... I am Jim Webb ... :smileylaughing: ... But I never killed anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat
Hope your buddy longshot didn’t place any bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
Joe Biden announces he will not run for president in 2016
Vice-president ends months of speculation about possible challenge to Hillary Clinton for Democratic nomination: ‘I’ve concluded my window has closed’
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/10/1232.jpg
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton
Another Focks News fock up.
:rofl:
Quote:
A CNN/ORC poll last week showed that Clinton held a 16 percentage point lead -- 45% to Sanders' 29% -- with Biden in the race and drawing 18% support. But with Biden removed from the list of candidates, Clinton's lead jumped to 56% to Sanders' 33%.
I was concerned he might run, but it works out well fit me thst he has dropped out. I think Trump Shillary would make for an interesting contest and one where I stand to cash in. :chitown:Quote:
Originally Posted by S LandrethHope your buddy longshot didn’t place any bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowie
Joe Biden announces he will not run for president in 2016
Vice-president ends months of speculation about possible challenge to Hillary Clinton for Democratic nomination: ‘I’ve concluded my window has closed’
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/10/1232.jpg
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton
Hillary will not be the next dictator of the oppressed world, same as she failed to get the mantle in 2008 she will fail again. Seppo's as dumb as fuk as they are won't elect her even if she does get the nomination, but I'm secretly hoping it is a Trump/Clinton race as whatever the outcome seppoland becomes a laughing stock.
Obama may be many things but dumb is not one,I think it'll be a long time before someone from a minority leads here UK or Oz,Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
UK can cite D'Israeli yet he became an Anglica patrican, Kennedy while a Catholic was from a wealthy bootlegging clan. Maggie was a mould breaker but marriage to wealthy Burmah oil exec opened doors.Last real outsiders were Curtin Ramsay McDonald and Harry Truman received medicare and had to move into his mother-in-laws,even I'm not that broke
If GOP win his attempt at healthcare reform may be set back a generation.If Hilary wins her achievement will e less
She failed last time because she didn't win her party's nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by buriramboy
It would take something special to stop her winning that this time round.
Maybe tomorrow's Salem Witch Trial will unearth a zinger.
Something for you teabaggers to think about for the weekend. Your next president,……
Did you teabaggers hear about the Benghaaaaaaaaazi hearing?
If in January 2017 (if :)), Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the 45th president of the United States, historians may well point to this month as the moment her campaign turned around. Like the first brisk snap of fall, Clinton’s terrible, horrible, no good, very bad summer has morphed overnight into the best week of her campaign: Joe Biden is out, her poll numbers are up, her crisp debate performance reassured nervous Democrats and her measured resolution before the House Benghazi committee made her interrogators (of both parties) seem small by comparison.
Clinton picked up from Biden's departure. And I would think her Benghazi performance will push her further ahead.
Quote:
Hillary Clinton is picking up steam in the early voting state of Iowa, with a new poll showing the former secretary of state beating her Democratic presidential rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, by 11 points.
Just more than half of likely Democratic-caucus goers — 51% — said they supported Clinton, compared to 40% who said they backed Sanders, according to the Quinnipiac survey released on Friday morning.
It’s a significant lead for Clinton, who was essentially tied with Sanders last month. At that point, Sanders garnered 41% compared to Clinton’s 40%.
So she did alright, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
Spent 11 hours being tag teamed by a bunch of idiots and never lost her cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by wjblaney
And when Gowdy was asked afterwards if he had learned *anything* new from it, he said "I'll have to look at the transcripts".
That goose is cooked.
^ Good news.
He has a very well thought out plan;
A common criticism labeled against presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (outside of being a communist) is that he wants to give away all this free stuff without paying for it. This comment isn’t as slanderous as it might appear, however, as Sanders has been somewhat less-vocal on how he plans to financially support all his amazing positions without running the Federal Government into the ground (something Bill Maher tried to push on him on last week’s episode of Real Time).
However, what is false about these claims is that Sanders does in fact have very logical methods for backing these programs without raising taxes too much on middle class Americans. Let’s look at each category:
Single-Payer Healthcare
Perhaps the single most memorable aspect of Sanders’s platform is the fact that he wants to expand Medicare to every American in this country. Sanders justifies this by pointing out how we pay much more for a lower-quality system than other countries with a single payer plan.
Sanders plans to pay for this through the American Health Security Act. Under this bill, various new taxes would be imposed, including: a 6.7 percent employer payroll tax, a 5.4 percent tax on high-income individuals, a .02 percent tax on securities transactions, and a progressive tax on individuals making between $200,000 to $600,000 a year.
Tuition-Free College
Sanders’s strong appeal among millennials relies on his fiery stance on many issues dear to us, including the terrible college debt situation we have now. Sanders wishes for everyone to have equal access to a high quality education in this country, not just for debt reasons but because it actively discourages high school students from wanting to attend universities.
The average year-long tuition for an in-state student is over $9000 (keep that specific category in mind since out-of-state fees are even more ridiculous), meaning people going for a bachelor’s degree will end up with over $36,000 in debt by the time they graduate (and that’s discounting the interest that builds up over the years).
Sanders plans to pay for this through the College for All Act. Aptly named, but what are the specifics? Well, for one, there’s going to be several taxes on Wall Street speculation- .5 percent on investment houses, hedge funds, and stock trades, .01 percent on bonds, and .005 percent fee on derivatives.
These numbers may sound small, but they will procure billions of dollars in funds for Bernie’s tuition free college.
Clean Energy
Sanders has been a committed environmentalist during his entire career, so it’s no surprise that he wants to tackle climate change head on through supporting green energy initiatives.
But, conservatives may ask, how do you plan to do this since Solyndra failed? Well, through several pieces of legislation: the Climate Protection Act, Super Pollutants Act, and the Sustainable Energy Act. All have been held back so far because of Republican House members, but they each strive to tackle a very important aspect of shifting the economy towards a pro-environment standard.
The Climate Protection Act would do two things- impose a carbon tax on greenhouse gas emitters, as well as pump millions of funds into clean energy technologies. The Super Pollutants Act would financially go after corporations that deliberately pollute the environment and get away with it. And finally the Sustainable Energy Act continues many of the policies set forth in the Climate Protection Act, including providing funds for a billion dollars to transition workers into their new jobs and tripling the budget of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a government agency that develops advanced energy technologies.
The carbon tax imposed by these pieces of legislation would be more than enough to provide the funds for these initiatives, with the specifics being a $20 carbon tax per ton of carbon emissions that will rise by 5.6 percent over the course of 10 years.
So as you can see, all the whining on the Right is just that- whining that Sanders actually has legitimate plans for the betterment of the United States, while the lot of them are stuck on deciding whether or not we need to build a freaking wall around the country.
How Bernie Sanders Will Pay For Everything
As I assume most posters on this topic know, Hillary will not consider bringing back the Glass-Stagall Act which Bill Clinton and Phil Graham ended in 1999.
HRC is in bed with Wall St.
» OCTOBER 9, 2015
Robert Reich: Why Hillary Clinton Is Wrong for Refusing To Resurrect Glass-Steagall
Resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act has become an important policy difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
BY ROBERT REICH
This is like arguing lifeguards are no longer necessary at beaches where no one has drowned. It ignores the fact that the big banks were bailed out. If the government hadn’t thrown them lifelines, many would have gone under.
Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.
This is a big mistake.
It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.
It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one.
Some background: During the Roaring Twenties, so much money could be made by speculating on shares of stock that several big Wall Street banks began selling stock along side their traditional banking services – taking in deposits and making loans.
Some banks went further, lending to pools of speculators that used the money to pump up share prices. The banks sold the shares to their customers, only to have the share prices collapse when the speculators dumped them.
For the banks, it was an egregious but hugely profitable conflict of interest.
After the entire stock market crashed in 1929, ushering in the Great Depression, Washington needed to restore the public’s faith in the banking system. One step was for Congress to enact legislation insuring commercial deposits against bank losses.
Another was to prevent the kinds of conflicts of interest that resulted in such losses, and which had fueled the boom and subsequent bust. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks couldn’t both gamble in the market and also take in deposits and make loans. They’d have to choose between the two.
“The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that reason.”
For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system.
But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits. They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall.
Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal Glass-Steagall altogether.
What happened next? An almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and sold them to their customers in the form of securities. Once again, there was a huge conflict of interest that finally resulted in a banking crisis.
This time the banks were bailed out, but millions of Americans lost their savings, their jobs, even their homes.
A personal note. I worked for Bill Clinton as Secretary of Labor and I believe most of his economic policies were sound. But during those years I was in fairly continuous battle with some other of his advisers who seemed determined to do Wall Street’s bidding.
On Glass-Steagall, they clearly won.
To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble.
And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone.
Other apologists for the Street blame the crisis on unscrupulous mortgage brokers.
Surely mortgage brokers do share some of the responsibility. But here again, the big banks were accessories and enablers.
The mortgage brokers couldn’t have funded the mortgage loans if the banks hadn’t bought them. And the big banks couldn’t have bought them if Glass-Steagall were still in place.
I’ve also heard bank executives claim there’s no reason to resurrect Glass-Steagall because none of the big banks actually failed.
This is like arguing lifeguards are no longer necessary at beaches where no one has drowned. It ignores the fact that the big banks were bailed out. If the government hadn’t thrown them lifelines, many would have gone under.
Remember? Their balance sheets were full of junky paper, non-performing loans, and worthless derivatives. They were bailed out because they were too big to fail. And the reason for resurrecting Glass-Steagall is we don’t want to go through that ever again.
As George Santayana famously quipped, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the roaring 2000’s, just as in the Roaring Twenties, America’s big banks used insured deposits to underwrite their gambling in private securities, and then dump the securities on their customers.
It ended badly.
This is precisely what the Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent – and did prevent for more than six decades.
Hillary Clinton, of all people, should remember.
Robert Reich: Why Hillary Clinton Is Wrong for Refusing To Resurrect Glass-Steagall - In These Times
^ What's Bernie's position on Glass-Stegall?
^ Sanders wants the Glass-Steagall Act reinstated. He wants the banks broken up so they will not be "too big to fail" again.
^ Boom! Thanks for taking the lead MK!
^^SK Jim Webb was a stick figure in the last debate he looked awful. I wish you could feel the Bern!
^He wants securities investment banks and commercial retail banks to be separate.
This is an old speech by Bernie Sanders which I think is one of the best I have heard from any politician. Anyone interested in investigating what Sanders is all about can listen to what he has to say here.
“You know, I, for the love of me, I cannot understand why people who have billions of dollars are compulsively driven for more and how many people have got to die because they don’t go to a doctor, because you want to avoid paying your taxes?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Y-u0UnKZ_U
Transcript here Senator Bernard Sanders Floor Statement - June 27, 2012 - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont
For me, Sanders understands what has caused the economic decline of the middle class in America and hopes to make changes to rectify. Clinton, unfortunately, does not see this the same way. Her ties to Wall Street will bring in most of her campaign funds. I don't think she make the changes necessary to restore a healthy middle class.
Agree but he must up his game on foreign policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit
Just saw the invisible third candidate, Martin O'Malley on the Daily Show.
So, what's wrong with this guy that he's not registering above 1%
Don't think there's much of anything wrong with O'Malley other than he's fairly unknown. It appears he hasn't put together a big enough campaign to bring attention to himself.
Shame, really - he sounds quite articulate and intelligent, has good viewpoints . . . perhaps next time round
It was a bullshit debate. Nothing more than the Bernie and Hillary show. I wish the other two knuckle heads would drop out ... then we'd get to see things between Bernie and Clinton get ugly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Sander's already taking swipes at Clinton.
Bernie Sanders Isn't Gonna Back Off His Attacks On Clinton
(Tried to post the article but having 'puter problems.)
^
Bernie Sanders Isn't Gonna Back Off His Attacks On Clinton
And now, he's going after her by name.
WASHINGTON -- Saturday evening’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa marked a seeming turning point in Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign.
The Vermont senator, known for his nearly monomaniacal focus on his agenda, took actual swipes at Hillary Clinton on everything from her vote for the Iraq War to her ambiguity on the Keystone XL Pipeline and trade deals.
Though Sanders didn’t mention Clinton by name, the jabs weren’t subtle. Nor was the timing, coming after a two-week period in which Clinton had a solid debate performance, did well at a hearing before the Select Committee on Benghazi and saw one of her toughest competitors -- Joe Biden -- pass on a presidential run.
In an interview with CNN Sunday morning, Sanders didn’t back down from his charges. And though he declined to say whether this marked a “new phase” of the presidential campaign, he did go after Clinton by name this time.
“I have consistently been a critic of what is going on on Wall Street, the greed, the recklessness, the illegal behavior. I helped lead the effort to -- against the deregulation of Wall Street. I believe that we should bring back Glass-Steagall legislation so that you do not have the absurd situation of commercial banks and investment banks and large insurance companies being together,” Sanders told CNN’s "State of the Union."
"You do not have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 60 percent of the GDP," he continued. "With all the economic and political power that these banks have, I think you've got to break them up. That has always -- that has been my view for a very, very long time. That is not Hillary Clinton's view."
I'm starting to wonder if there is any possibility of Elizabeth Warren being his VP.Quote:
Originally Posted by misskit