Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Hillary didn't just vote for Iraq. She made her own Iraq. Libya is Hillary's Iraq and if she becomes president she will make more.


I have had years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton and have read thousands of her cables. Hillary lacks judgement and will push the United States into endless, stupid wars which spread terrorism. Her personality combined with her poor policy decisions have directly contributed to the rise of ISIS.


Pentagon generals objected to destroying the Libyan state. They felt Hillary did not have a safe post-war plan. Hillary Clinton went over their heads. Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria. Hillary's war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women's rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years. Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria.
Hillary publicly took credit for the destruction of the Libyan state. On hearing that the country's president had been killed by her handiwork, she became wild-eyed and gloated "We came, we saw, he died!". In the momentary thrill of the kill, she had aped, of all people, Julius Ceaser.


Hillary's problem is not just that she's war hawk. She's a war hawk with bad judgement who gets an unseemly emotional rush out of killing people. She shouldn't be let near a gun shop, let alone an army. And she certainly should not become president of the United States.

http://wikileaks.org/hillary-war/

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I think you need to look up ad hominem. I said that your objectivity about her is questionable: something you just substantiated again yourself in your post.

You despise her, in your own words, and the 'issues' as you put it are merely your opinions that flow from that. Why is it ok for you to abuse and denigrate but at even a hint of having your views questioned you get all precious and start bleating about personal attacks.

Within one post you have demonstrated you don't have a clue what you are talking about to a level that is literally shocking; there is nothing in your post original post except ad-hominen attacks and you just added more.

Its just so utterly bereft of anything.

Ahh yes of course, not only do you bleat about personal attacks you almost invariably follow it with one of your own.

If telling yourself that I/others don't have a clue makes you feel better then by all means do so. It doesn't seem to work very well for you though.

Originally Posted by longway

^ Again there is no attempt to debate the issues only ad hominen attacks. Whether I harbour a hatred or not is irrelevant; what is relevant are the points I bring up.

I despise her, and my reasons for despising her are well laid out. Its got nothing to do with her sex, but her record.

That is not an ad hominem attack (or even an ad hominen one).

The fact is that you're shitting yourself that, even if the Chump wins the nomination, she'll rip him to pieces, because all he's got are stupid fucking populist soundbites with not a single sensible policy to back it up.

Import tariffs on Chinese goods?

Yeah watch the Chinese turn the dollar to fucking dust if that ever happened.

You need to stop this childish slagging off; just because you keep repeating the same old shite doesn't mean it's going to come true.

We realise you're worried that you're going to lose your bet; just accept that you backed the wrong horse.

Originally Posted by Troy

I think he was talking protectionism by imposing huuuge tariffs on imported goods

Originally Posted by longway

^ He wants to renegotiate the deals, if possible, to include issues like currency manipulation and reciprocal access to foreign markets, China does not hold all the cards, the USA does, but all western governments have betrayed their citizens in signing up to these demonstrably unfair trade deals.

Like the Steel tariffs that Bush imposed in 2002? That went down a treat with the result of lower production, increased cost and increased unemployment...not to mention a very disgruntled international community.

Originally Posted by longway

Its clear that the most vocal opposition to Trump have no idea what his campaign is based on.

Would you like to explain the policies Trump has in the pipeline to implement his wishes with respect to major US companies outsourcing abroad?

And while you are at it, explain how he's going to deport 12 million people without due process.

And how he's going to get Mexico to pay for a wall.

Before he achieved political office, Bernie Sanders never had a steady paycheck in the first four decades of his life. Now, he aspires to the highest office in the land where he could play a decisive role in shaping the circumstances under which the rest of us work and receive (when we can) our paychecks. It is a sobering record, as Investor’s Business Daily explains it:

His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.

“I never had any money my entire life,” Sanders told Vermont public TV in 1985, after settling into his first real job as mayor of Burlington.

Sanders spent most of his life as an angry radical and agitator who never accomplished much of anything. And yet now he thinks he deserves the power to run your life and your finances — “We will raise taxes;” he confirmed Monday, “yes, we will.”

One of his first jobs was registering people for food stamps, and it was all downhill from there.

Sanders took his first bride to live in a maple sugar shack with a dirt floor, and she soon left him. Penniless, he went on unemployment. Then he had a child out of wedlock. Desperate, he tried carpentry but could barely sink a nail. “He was a shi**y carpenter,” a friend told Politico Magazine. “His carpentry was not going to support him, and didn’t.”

Then he tried his hand freelancing for leftist rags, writing about “masturbation and rape” and other crudities for $50 a story. He drove around in a rusted-out, Bondo-covered VW bug with no working windshield wipers. Friends said he was “always poor” and his “electricity was turned off a lot.” They described him as a slob who kept a messy apartment — and this is what his friends had to say about him.

The only thing he was good at was talking … non-stop … about socialism and how the rich were ripping everybody off. “The whole quality of life in America is based on greed,” the bitter layabout said. “I believe in the redistribution of wealth in this nation.”

So he tried politics, starting his own socialist party. Four times he ran for Vermont public office, and four times he lost — badly. He never attracted more than single-digit support — even in the People’s Republic of Vermont. In his 1971 bid for U.S. Senate, the local press said the 30-year-old “Sanders describes himself as a carpenter who has worked with ‘disturbed children.’ ” In other words, a real winner.

He finally wormed his way into the Senate in 2006, where he still ranks as one of the poorest members of Congress. Save for a municipal pension, Sanders lists no assets in his name.

Well, at least he hasn’t pulled a Clinton and enriched himself via influence-peddling. But it is quite clear that envy is a deep part of his psychology. That has become the source of focus in his life, something that obviously was lacking until he got into politics.

Can a man who was unable to earn a decent living, unable to keep himself in orderly environment, without political office really be the chief executive of the United States Government?

Blog: Bernie Sanders before political office - American Thinker
American Thinker › 2016/01




Read more: Blog: Bernie Sanders before political office
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Politico piece on Bernie Sanders is built around his weird personal life and who the mother of his kids is, but that's of less interest and less surprise when dealing with leftists back then. Equally unsurprising and telling, Bernie Sanders was unemployable outside politics and seems to have financed everything with dubiously obtained unemployment checks.

We're told that "He read Marx, Lenin and Trotsky." Like them, he wasn't big on working. Marx lived off Engels. Sanders lived off Uncle Sam.

"That summer, not quite 23, he and his wife, Deborah Sanders, bought for $2,500 some property in Vermont, near Montpelier in the town of Middlesex off Shady Rill Road, according to property records."

Where did the money come from?

"He explained the origin of the money Sanders used to buy the Middlesex land and the carpentry he did on the sugar shack. He said Sanders received unemployment, “for a few months,” in 1971, though Sanders can’t remember what the job was that qualified him for the benefits."

But living off unemployment was the Sanders way.

“The electricity was turned off a lot,” Barnett said. “I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.”

He worked some as a carpenter, although “he was a shitty carpenter,” Bloch told me. “His carpentry,” Morrisseau said, “was not going to support him, and didn’t.”...

“He was always poor,” Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington.

“Virtually unemployed,” said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont.

“Just one step above hand to mouth,” said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch.

Liberty Union “people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work,” Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. “Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance.”

Sanders, according to an article in 1974 in the Bennington Banner, was one of them. He was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In subsequent Liberty Union campaigns he advocated for “the doing away with all time limitations for unemployment benefits.”



I bet.

All this stuff is tediously predictable. The hardest core leftists tend to be unemployable. Or as their comrades in the USSR would have called them, parasites.

Bernie Sanders was a terrible carpenter, but he could really go all out when it came to unemployment. When he had actually had to find work, that consisted of driving around showing a filmstrip about leftist Eugene Debs. He spent most of his life in government because there's nothing else he can do.

And, as the article shows, he's been shouting the exact same things since at least the 70s. His radio address in 1973 is the same exact speech as the one he's giving now about, about two Americas and corporations controlling everything. He has no new ideas or any ideas period.

The article even tells us that he saw himself as a 30s old leftist making him ideologically older than his years.

Bernie Sanders can only exist when being paid by taxpayers.

Bernie Sanders Lived Off Unemployment, Couldn't Get a ...
FPM | Frontpage Mag › point › bernie...

^So what? Since when is it a crime to not be well off?

Originally Posted by Humbert

^So what? Since when is it a crime to not be well off?

No but to a loser like Sanders it would appear its a crime to be rich and successful ,IMHO Socialism is and always has been the politics of envy , they think that to make the poor rich you have got to make the rich poor . http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...chu164131.html

Originally Posted by piwanoi

No but to a loser like Sanders it would appear its a crime to be rich and successful ,IMHO Socialism is and always has been the politics of envy , they think that to make the poor rich you have got to make the rich poor

That's a total distortion of his positions on regulating the banks. Get informed before making more ignorant comments.

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by piwanoi

No but to a loser like Sanders it would appear its a crime to be rich and successful ,IMHO Socialism is and always has been the politics of envy , they think that to make the poor rich you have got to make the rich poor

That's a total distortion of his positions on regulating the banks. Get informed before making more ignorant comments.

I made no comments on his bank regulation Plans,just my opinion on Socialism as a whole .

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The Politico piece on Bernie Sanders is built around his weird personal life and who the mother of his kids is, but that's of less interest and less surprise when dealing with leftists back then. Equally unsurprising and telling, Bernie Sanders was unemployable outside politics and seems to have financed everything with dubiously obtained unemployment checks.

We're told that "He read Marx, Lenin and Trotsky." Like them, he wasn't big on working. Marx lived off Engels. Sanders lived off Uncle Sam.

"That summer, not quite 23, he and his wife, Deborah Sanders, bought for $2,500 some property in Vermont, near Montpelier in the town of Middlesex off Shady Rill Road, according to property records."

Where did the money come from?

"He explained the origin of the money Sanders used to buy the Middlesex land and the carpentry he did on the sugar shack. He said Sanders received unemployment, “for a few months,” in 1971, though Sanders can’t remember what the job was that qualified him for the benefits."

But living off unemployment was the Sanders way.

“The electricity was turned off a lot,” Barnett said. “I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn’t pay his bills.”

He worked some as a carpenter, although “he was a shitty carpenter,” Bloch told me. “His carpentry,” Morrisseau said, “was not going to support him, and didn’t.”...

“He was always poor,” Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington.

“Virtually unemployed,” said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont.

“Just one step above hand to mouth,” said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch.

Liberty Union “people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work,” Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. “Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance.”

Sanders, according to an article in 1974 in the Bennington Banner, was one of them. He was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In subsequent Liberty Union campaigns he advocated for “the doing away with all time limitations for unemployment benefits.”



I bet.

All this stuff is tediously predictable. The hardest core leftists tend to be unemployable. Or as their comrades in the USSR would have called them, parasites.

Bernie Sanders was a terrible carpenter, but he could really go all out when it came to unemployment. When he had actually had to find work, that consisted of driving around showing a filmstrip about leftist Eugene Debs. He spent most of his life in government because there's nothing else he can do.

And, as the article shows, he's been shouting the exact same things since at least the 70s. His radio address in 1973 is the same exact speech as the one he's giving now about, about two Americas and corporations controlling everything. He has no new ideas or any ideas period.

The article even tells us that he saw himself as a 30s old leftist making him ideologically older than his years.

Bernie Sanders can only exist when being paid by taxpayers.

Bernie Sanders Lived Off Unemployment, Couldn't Get a ...
FPM | Frontpage Mag › point › bernie...

Two excellent articles RP which gets down to the nitty gritty of the guy, of course you may experience a few personal insults for having the sheer temerity for posting them

Originally Posted by bsnub

All of them entitled and not a aside from Trump none of them accomplished squat in the private sector.

Even Trump's merits in that regard are debatable. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, multiple times bankrupted...

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Humbert

^So what? Since when is it a crime to not be well off?

Its not and the hardship he experienced in his early life helped to shape him into the person he is today. The right wing blogs repeater666 has quoted are exaggerations without any proof anyways.

Take a look at all the morons running on the Republican ticket. All of them entitled and not a aside from Trump none of them accomplished squat in the private sector.

And of course you have positive proof that both of RP articles on Sanders are a load of bollox then? perhaps you can post them ,

Originally Posted by piwanoi

And of course you have positive proof that both of RP articles on Sanders are a load of bollox then? perhaps you can post them

Burden of proof fallacy.

Are you aware of the concept of Russell's teapot, peewee.

^ Of course he is not and neither is repeater and frankly I don't think they care. Its all about what they want to hear. Facts are secondary and they have proven this true time and time again.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

And of course you have positive proof that both of RP articles on Sanders are a load of bollox then?

The fact is if you post up allegations the burden of proof lies with you to prove your allegations. Just because someone has an opinion does not make it true.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by piwanoi

And of course you have positive proof that both of RP articles on Sanders are a load of bollox then? perhaps you can post them

Burden of proof fallacy.

Are you aware of the concept of Russell's teapot, peewee.

PeeWees I thinks Captain Underpants is more your cups of tease.

Bertrand Russell and his teapots are relevant to the existence, or not of god.

Not dimbulb dogshit politics.

Get a fucking grip man!

It was referenced to illustrate an example, Earl.

That was pretty clear from the context of the post. Does everything really have to be dumbed down to the nth degree for you (yes, that's a rhetorical question).

Go back to this DNC speech given by Barbara Jordan 40 years ago in 1976. One of the best speeches ever at the DNC.

"We believe in equality for all and privilege for none" Barbara Jordan

I just ran a Google search DO BERNIE SANDERS SUMS ADD UP? there was quite a few article's, all said a resounding no they did not add up , here is just one of them A vote for what? | The Economist

Its getting interesting....



A new national poll from Reuters shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton by 6 points among Democrats — his largest lead of the primary so far.
According to the 5-day rolling poll results released on February 23, Sanders has the support of 41.7 percent of voters who identify as Democrat compared to Clinton’s 35.5 percent. The poll sampled 998 voters from across the country who identify as Democrats or as independents who lean towards the Democratic party.




Reuters polls have showed Clinton and Sanders in a virtual dead heat since the beginning of February. Following the Iowa caucus, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed Clinton just two points ahead of Sanders in a national survey with a 5-point margin of error, meaning the poll was effectively a dead heat. A Quinnipiac national poll released on February 17 showed Sanders two points ahead of Clinton, which was also within the margin of error.


The Reuters poll released on January 23, however, showed Clinton was 5 points ahead with self-identifying Democrats. This effectively means an 11-point swing in Sanders’ favor over a one-month period. Sanders is gaining ground on Clinton at roughly the same pace Barack Obama did in 2008, according to RealClearPolitics polling averages. Between February 22 and February 24, 2008, Obama was up just 3 points on Clinton.


This poll comes at a critical time for the Sanders campaign, which is coming off of a 5-point loss in the Nevada caucus and is perceived as the underdog in Saturday’s South Carolina primary. Sanders faces another uphill contest as Super Tuesday looms ahead on March 1. The Vermont senator has been steadily gaining ground in crucial primary states like Georgia and Texas, which award approximately 20 percent of total delegates between the two of them.


Stunning New Reuters Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Leading Nationally by 6 Percent