Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Originally Posted by MrG

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY BOON MEE: The other thread is regarding Embassies throughout the world that get bombed. This thread was started as Benghazi is heating up again with more Senate Hearings coming up to determine culpability.

Did HRC ignore the 3am phone call?

Was Obma-'meh' safely tucked in his bed too getting prepared for Vegas in the morning?

Why was the military response team(s) told to stand down?

Try to pay attention to the thread, idiot. The Rethugs in Congresss have finally admitted they got nothin' and never had nothin'.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

To brings things up to date,….

Republicans Finally Admit There Is No Benghazi Scandal (again,..in their 7th report)

For two years, ever since Mitt Romney screwed up his response to the Benghazi attacks in order to score campaign points, Republicans have been on an endless search for a grand conspiracy theory that explains how it all happened. Intelligence was ignored because it would have been inconvenient to the White House to acknowledge it. Hillary Clinton's State Department bungled the response to the initial protests in Cairo. Both State and CIA bungled the military response to the attacks themselves. Even so, rescue was still possible, but it was derailed by a stand down order—possibly from President Obama himself. The talking points after the attack were deliberately twisted for political reasons. Dissenters who tried to tell us what really happened were harshly punished.

Is any of this true? The House Select Intelligence Committee—controlled by Republicans—has been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail for two years. Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued their findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and nearly absolute. So sweeping that I want to quote directly from the report's summary, rather than paraphrasing it. Here it is:

• The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi....Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support....

• Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

• Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks....

• Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke)....

• Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public appearances—was flawed....

• Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

It's hard to exaggerate just how remarkable this document is. It's not that the committee found nothing to criticize. They did. The State Department facility in Benghazi had inadequate security. Some of the early intelligence after the attacks was inaccurate. The CIA should have given more weight to eyewitnesses on the ground.

But those are routine after-action critiques, ones that were fully acknowledged by the very first investigations. Beyond that, every single conspiracy theory—without exception—was conclusively debunked. There was no stand down order. The tactical response was both reasonable and effective under the circumstances. The CIA was not shipping arms from Libya to Syria. Both CIA and State received all military support that was available. The talking points after the attack were fashioned by the intelligence community, not the White House. Susan Rice followed these talking points in her Sunday show appearances, and where she was wrong, it was only because the intelligence community had made incorrect assessments. Nobody was punitively reassigned or polygraphed or otherwise intimidated to prevent them from testifying to Congress.

Read that list again. Late on a Friday afternoon, when it would get the least attention, a Republican-led committee finally admitted that every single Benghazi conspiracy theory was false. There are ways that the response to the attacks could have been improved, but that's it. Nobody at the White House interfered. Nobody lied. Nobody prevented the truth from being told.

It was all just manufactured outrage from the beginning. But now the air is gone. There is no scandal, and there never was.

When will we get our money back from these republican clowns and their 7 no 8 hearings/reports on Benghazi?

I believe your talking about not current events.

Originally Posted by sabang

TeHe :-

Bill Clinton will keep giving speeches to 'pay our bills'

Clinton said he gives 10 percent of his revenue each year to the Clinton Foundation, and that Hillary "gave 17 percent" in the years she was with it.

Bill Clinton will keep giving speeches to 'pay our bills'

very nice of them and hope they will continue. well,......both of them (again) after Mrs. Clinton leaves office about 10 years from now

Why has Carly Fiorina taken 314 more questions than HRC, eh?

Hillary Clinton Supporters Surprised At Her Gender Pay Hypocrisy



Hypocrisy coupled with serial lies?

What a gal!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Why has Carly Fiorina taken 314 more questions than HRC, eh?

Because she's had a lot of free time after getting fired for almost running HP into the ground?

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Why has Carly Fiorina taken 314 more questions than HRC, eh?

Because she's had a lot of free time after getting fired for almost running HP into the ground?

Heh...more than likely not.

Perhaps she's not afraid of the spotlight and has less to hide?

^I don't like the Hilderbeast either, but quite honestly I see no other viable alternative. Seriously, BM, do you see anyone who can even give her a run for the money?

DNC Sanctions 6 Televised Opportunities For MSM To Not Ask Hillary Any Real Questions

All served up for you Lapboys/girls/fans of bad theater!

"The Democratic National Committee announced Tuesday that they will sanction six presidential debates beginning this fall, giving Hillary Clinton’s challengers a limited number of chances to confront the former secretary of state on the debate stage.

“We’ve always believed that we would have a competitive primary process, and that debates would be an important part of that process,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a press release.

The mere fact that Wasserman-Schultz is still in charge should give Republicans plenty of hope, no matter how much “inevitable” the press and the GOP establishment tell us Mrs. Bill is.

Team Clinton and those in the press committed to her election (everyone but the New York Times it would seem) have done a lot of work laying the ground rules for what her Divine Madameship can be asked or called. Fourteenth Century kings didn’t have as many dos and don’ts. By the time the DNC’s Kabukifest hits the airwaves the moderators may only be allowed to say, “Thank you for being here, Secretary Clinton.”

The upside to this for both her Democratic challengers and the Republicans is that any prolonged exposure (more than 5 minutes, usually) to a camera in a live setting is usually disastrous for the least likable woman in the world. There is the story of Hillary Clinton, then there is Hillary Clinton herself. One is nice and one frightens children.

Of course, the media entities involved will do all they can to keep these debates as close to round table script readings as possible to provide Hillary some cover. They can’t, however, control that pinched, angry look she flashes whenever the slightest thing in the universe fails to show her deference.

Younger voters who have only heard the story of Hillary Clinton until now will find sleep a bit less forthcoming once they see that."

DNC will sanction 6 primary debates - Elena Schneider - POLITICO

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^I don't like the Hilderbeast either, but quite honestly I see no other viable alternative. Seriously, BM, do you see anyone who can even give her a run for the money?

Still early but recent polls have shown slippage w/regard to her popularity. She's not trustworthy and the Clinton Foundation is Bubba's slush fund.

Viable alternatives? Walker, Rubio? I'd like to mention too Ted Cruz although he seems to be as polarizing as HRC.

A Dark Horse might emerge.

IMHO the dark horse on the Democrat side could be James Webb. But the politics of politics being whatever they are I'm thinking there are already behind the scenes negotiations going on. I can see Webb as her VP or Secretary of State.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^I don't like the Hilderbeast either, but quite honestly I see no other viable alternative. Seriously, BM, do you see anyone who can even give her a run for the money?

Still early but recent polls have shown slippage w/regard to her popularity. She's not trustworthy and the Clinton Foundation is Bubba's slush fund.

Viable alternatives? Walker, Rubio? I'd like to mention too Ted Cruz although he seems to be as polarizing as HRC.

A Dark Horse might emerge.

IMHO the dark horse on the Democrat side could be James Webb. But the politics of politics being whatever they are I'm thinking there are already behind the scenes negotiations going on. I can see Webb as her VP or Secretary of State.

I like Webb too.

He's basically a Democrat in name only.

Wall Street is worried that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s vigorous calls for banking industry reform will pull Hillary Clinton to the left, as the two presidential candidates battle for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
Sanders (I-Vt.) last week unveiled new legislation designed to break up the nation’s largest banks, declaring that “if an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.”
Though it stands virtually no chance of passage in the GOP-controlled Congress, the bill has industry leaders fretting.
“The prospects of it becoming law are nil,” said one banking lobbyist, who described Sanders’s legislations as “shrill, bombastic and misaligned.”“But we care about whether this impacts Hillary and whether she’ll try to pander to the far left.”
Business and banking groups, and their lobbying forces on K Street, are quickly lining up against the legislation.
“Misses the mark,” said Tom Quaadman, vice president of the U.S. Chamber Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.
“I fully expect Senator Sanders’s third attempt to break up banks to have the same impact as the previous two: zero,” echoed Tony Fratto, a partner at Hamilton Place Strategies, which does communications work with big banks.
Despite the vocal opposition from the business community, Sanders’s ability to activate progressive outside groups could mean he may be able to move Clinton to the left — even if, as conventional wisdom says, he poses no real threat to the former secretary of State’s eventual nomination.
Sanders’s rhetoric signals that, seven years after the 2008 economic collapse, progressives still see tapping into anger about the taxpayer bailouts to big banks as a winning political strategy.
“When it comes down to it — he’s doing this not just because he’s trying to demonize the industry but this populist stuff is popular with his base,” a second banking lobbyist said.
Groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (DFA) have already launched campaigns to get Clinton to adopt a more progressive platform and to draft Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) into the race, despite her declarations that she’s not running for president.
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who is sponsoring similar legislation in the House, said that any criticism of the legislation is coming from “top executives who control the biggest banks.”
“This isn’t about an election cycle,” Sherman said. “I am much more interested in what Hillary Clinton does as president in office than in a campaign. Campaigns are fun but governing is what matters.”
Still, Sherman said that he hopes the legislation, which even he conceded isn’t likely to become law this Congress, might move the needle for his party.
“I’m hoping that some time in the next few years we will have ‘too big to fail is too big to exist’ policy either by using existing laws or by passing new statutes,” Sherman said.
Paul Merski, an executive vice president at the Independent Community Bankers Association, said many smaller community banks support Sanders’s effort.
“It may force [Clinton] to speak about ‘too big to fail,’ ” Merski said.
Clinton is under pressure from Sanders, Warren and other liberals to take a harder line on financial issues as she looks to rally Democrats behind her campaign. But at the same time, too forceful a stance could cause her a headache in the general election.
In other areas — such as immigration, gay marriage and campaign finance —Clinton has taken liberal positions on issues since launching her campaign.
But she has yet to release any specific type of economic policy agenda, something that she is certain to be asked about in the coming months.
Meanwhile, Warren, Sanders and other progressives have raised criticism about former President Bill Clinton’s economic policies during the late 1990s. Chief among them is his support for — and signature on — the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall banking law requiring commercial banks to split their investment banking operations.
Sanders was one of eight lawmakers to vote against Glass-Steagall’s repeal.
“Bernie Sanders is a long-time champion of these issues,” said Neil Sroka, spokesman for the DFA. “This is about Democrats putting forward very early on in the cycle big progressive ideas.”
Quaadman was less convinced.
“Continuing to politicize the debate about our financial regulatory system will not produce the thoughtful, forward-looking leadership and smart regulation we need to grow our economy,” Quaadman said.


Banks brace for Bernie Sanders | TheHill

Originally Posted by misskit

He isn't merely running against other presidential contenders, he is running against the Big Money control of the US Government.

Which means he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the top spot . . . the US simply isn't a nation where the little people's interests are represented by a party as both (yes, that's the problem - there are two) parties rely far too heavily on big donations

Call him the socialist anti-Hoover. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Dem nomination, dreams of an America without automobiles like when he was a kid.

What would that look like?

SANDERS: It would look like a tax on carbon; a massive investment in solar, wind, geothermal; it would be making sure that every home and building in this country is properly winterized; it would be putting substantial money into rail, both passenger and cargo, so we can move towards breaking our dependency on automobiles. And it would be leading other countries around the world."

Mebe Bernie could borrow this picture for a campaign poster?



https://disqus.com/home/discussion/m..._every_garage/

Michelle Malkin | » Bernie Sanders? challenging vision for America: No car in every garage

Dear Abby:

My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and, when I confront him he denies everything. What's worse,everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and shoot the bull with his buddies, while I have to work to pay the bills.
Since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me, and even hints that I may be a lesbian.

What should I do?
Signed: Clueless


Dear Clueless:

Grow up and dump him. Good grief woman! You don't need him anymore!
You're running for President of the United States.
Act like one.

Good morning teabaggers. I hope you had a nice weekend and I hope you have a better week than the one person (Jeb Bush) who will be your nominee to run against , did last week.

Jeb should spend a little time listening to the people and not opening his mouth only to change his mind a few times on one subject in one week. Jeb might want to think about distancing himself from that loser brother of his also, if he wants to stay in the race.

Mrs. Clinton is letting us know little by little about the changes she would like to see while the GOP continues to alienate voters.

For you teabaggers here’s another poll to start your miserable week. This is a FOX News poll and it shows you might have a chance, but remember this is a FOX poll.

Look at Cruz’s numbers (below from the same FOX poll above),…….March @ 10, April @ 8, May @ 6. Few more months Cruz will be as popular as Fiorina.

The more the American public gets to know Cruz, the more they dislike him.

Here’s another poll for you Rand Paul nuts. Pual can’t even beat Mrs. Clinton in his home state.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^I don't like the Hilderbeast either, but quite honestly I see no other viable alternative. Seriously, BM, do you see anyone who can even give her a run for the money?

I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle that can contend with Hillary.

A possible (and just speculating on this ticket) is the Jeb Bush & Rubio ticket.

I don't see them or anyone in the GOP beathing HRC in a national election.

Unions Flood Clinton Foundation With Millions; Some Donations Marked As “Political” Activity…



Big labor funneled millions of dollars in dues money to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a union watchdog group, traced at least $2 million in donations from multiple union organizations and affiliates.

“U.S. Department of Labor’s union financial disclosure reports reveal that Big Labor gave at least $2,034,500 in union general treasury funds to Clinton Foundations. Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory union dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to pay,” the NILRR report says. “As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased.”

The Clintons have turned their foundation into a lucrative “slush fund,” according to one charity watchdog group, and have received hundreds of millions of dollars from notable businesses, media personalities, and political luminaries. The family has maintained that none of those donations influenced her decisions as secretary of state and that the money is strictly philanthropic.

However, unions did not necessarily agree about the apolitical nature of the donations, according to NILRR.

“Some of these ‘donations’ are categorized by the unions as ‘political’ on their financial disclosure report” to the Labor Department, the report says."

Unions Pour Millions into Clinton Foundation | Washington Free Beacon

How come this report isn't a big surprise, eh?

Idiot Leftists Prove They Know About As Much About Hillary Clinton As a Door Knob

Luke Rudkowski and Mark Dice from WeAreChange went out and proved to the world that Hillary Clinton supporters are as dumb as a box of rocks.

The two videographers teamed up to show everyone how Hillary Clinton supporters actually do not even know why they are supporting her. Luke and Mark give made up policies or the complete opposite of Hillarys actions to see if people really know who Hillary Clinton is.

Their stupidity will blow your mind.



Just like the LIV's here who still maintain that HRC is the real deal!

Hillary Clinton Refuses to Answer a Question from a Reporter, Preferring to Continue Talking to Her Plants

Her "everyday Americans," the ones who always turn out to be a bunch of Planned Parenthood Managers, College Democrats, and one of her two fat, money-grubbing brothers.

Why do people who get caught out in their lies think that avoiding questions related to their lies is the right way to go?

As long as her sheeple and media swarms support her in these lies there's really no hope of actual truth being exposed. Shame isn't it?

Originally Posted by ltnt

Why do people who get caught out in their lies think that avoiding questions related to their lies is the right way to go?

As long as her sheeple and media swarms support her in these lies there's really no hope of actual truth being exposed. Same isn't it?

Indeed.

Waiting (w/out baited breath mind you) for some acknoweledgement to that effect on the part of our usual suspects here. The TDMA crowd and they know who they are.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The TDMA crowd and they know who they are.

No they don't.

They are perfect in every way, just ask them...next question please...