Democrats 2016

[Mr.B66]

No one can beat Killary, no one.

NOOOOOOOO!!!! Please don't say that[emoji33]
I throw up in my mouth a little, every time i hear her name. Shes probably one of the most repulsive human being to ever walk this planet, and if she becomes president, that will tell me that a large segment of the american population are intellectually neutered!!

 

[flenser]

NOOOOOOOO!!!! Please don't say that[emoji33]
I throw up in my mouth a little, every time i hear her name. Shes probably one of the most repulsive human being to ever walk this planet, and if she becomes president, that will tell me that a large segment of the american population are intellectually neutered!!

Call me a moon bat, but I predict she will not only win, but she will be the first president to nuke another country during peace time. I REALLY hope I'm wrong.

 

[heady muscle]

No one can beat Killary, no one.

Elizabeth Warren.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

No one can beat Killary, no one.

Elizabeth Warren.

That's true. The Dems practically begged Warren to run because they have serious doubts about Hillary.

I have the opposite view, Flenser. Provided the Repubs don't nominate a monkey, I don't think Hillary can win.

 

[Mr.B66]

Call me a moon bat, but I predict she will not only win, but she will be the first president to nuke another country during peace time. I REALLY hope I'm wrong.

SO DO I!!!!

 

[Mr.B66]

That's true. The Dems practically begged Warren to run because they have serious doubts about Hillary.

I have the opposite view, Flenser. Provided the Repubs don't nominate a monkey, I don't think Hillary can win.

I hope your right CBS, but ill be happy if anybody besides hiller... Um hila ..... Ah fuck just threw up in my mouth again.

 

[flenser]

That's true. The Dems practically begged Warren to run because they have serious doubts about Hillary.

I have the opposite view, Flenser. Provided the Repubs don't nominate a monkey, I don't think Hillary can win.

I hope you're right, truly. But I think it will be Clinton/Bush - again - and Jeb is even dumber than his brother.

Warren is more likely to back Bernie than run herself, and even my leftist wife thinks he's a commie : )

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I hope you're right, truly. But I think it will be Clinton/Bush - again - and Jeb is even dumber than his brother.

Warren is more likely to back Bernie than run herself, and even my leftist wife thinks he's a commie : )

I think it's been reported that Warren is going to back Sanders. Hillary will win the nomination but lose the election. This was supposed to be her coronation and now even MSNBC are trashing her. Even if you ignore the fact that she's a pathological liar, she's just not likeable.

I don't think Jeb can win the nomination. The conservative base are done listening to the establishment and electing moderates like Romney and McCain. I don't know who's going to win the nomination but it's not going to be Bush.

 

[flenser]

I think it's been reported that Warren is going to back Sanders. Hillary will win the nomination but lose the election. This was supposed to be her coronation and now even MSNBC are trashing her. Even if you ignore the fact that she's a pathological liar, she's just not likeable.

I don't think Jeb can win the nomination. The conservative base are done listening to the establishment and electing moderates like Romney and McCain. I don't know who's going to win the nomination but it's not going to be Bush.

That would make a few online gamblers a lot of money. I'm not optimistic, but I still hope you're right.

 

[TheGuy85]

Hey, a candidate I actually respect...


Jim Webb announces 2016 Democratic bid

http://www.politico.com/reporters/GabrielDebenedetti.html 7/2/15

Democrat Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator, jumped into the presidential race with an email announcing his candidacy on Thursday afternoon.

“I understand the odds, particularly in today’s political climate where fair debate is so often drowned out by huge sums of money,” Webb wrote in the roughly 2,000-word email. “I know that more than one candidate in this process intends to raise at least a billion dollars – some estimates run as high as two billion dollars – in direct and indirect financial support.”

Webb is a long-shot for the nomination in a field dominated by Hillary Clinton, and which also features a surging Bernie Sanders — not to mention Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. While Webb has traveled to early-voting states and begun to build a bare-bones political operation, he remains near the bottom of Democratic polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, and nationwide.

“Our country needs a fresh approach to solving the problems that confront us and too often unnecessarily divide us. We need to shake the hold of these shadow elites on our political process,” Webb wrote. “And at the same time our fellow Americans need proven, experienced leadership that can be trusted to move us forward from a new President’s first days in office. I believe I can offer both.”

I actually have been looking at Webb for awhile now and I believe he is very sincere about criminal justice reform and serious drug policy changes. Too bad nobody knows who he is and I doubt he will have the funding to put himself out there as a serious candidate. How can an honest politician ever get elected (not saying Webb is, but I question the integrity of politicians with big money. Wherever big money plays, corruption won't be too far away) .

Jim Webb

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7707638

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07...VA-Treat-Drugs-Like-Cigarettes-Not-As-A-Crime

http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_28426272/jim-webb-iraq-war-critic-and-democrat-will


Jim Webb on the issues: economy, gay marriage, veterans


By Ken Thomas Associated Press

Friday, July 3, 2015 - 5:30 p.m.


http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...jim-webb-issues-economy-gay-marriage-veterans


ECONOMY

Webb speaks about the need for economic "fairness" and ways of addressing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. He has said he would pursue a tax overhaul if elected president and suggested he would reduce the corporate tax rate in exchange for eliminating numerous loopholes. Webb has said he would examine shifting tax policies away from income and more toward consumption. He has cited the need to repair crumbling roads and bridges and advocated for federal programs to fix the nation's infrastructure.

FOREIGN POLICY

In his presidential announcement, Webb noted that he wrote about the potential problems of going to war in Iraq five months before the 2003 invasion by the U.S. He has said the invasion of Iraq strengthened Iran and he's criticized President Barack Obama's use of force in Libya, saying it set a bad precedent in the region. He has called for the creation of a "new strategic doctrine" for foreign policy that would lay out the circumstances in which the U.S. would use military force. Webb has been wary of nuclear talks with Iran, saying the Obama administration and Congress "should be looking very hard at the actual terms of this agreement, which we on the outside cannot yet see or evaluate."

VETERANS

Webb was central in the passage of the post-Sept. 11 GI Bill for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking to attend college. He has said it "shows that you can get things done in the United States government; you can get over the paralysis and work across the aisle." He also pushed for ensuring that service members have enough time in the U.S. before being deployed overseas for another mission. He has also criticized the backlog of claims in the Veterans Administration system.

------

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

In the Senate, Webb championed ways to overhaul the nation's criminal justice system, pointing to the swollen prison population and the influx of incarcerated drug offenders since the 1980s. He held Senate hearings to address the matter, arguing the country was spending billions on non-violent offenders. In his announcement, he said: "It's wasting lives, often beginning at a very early age, creating career criminals rather than curing them. It's not making our neighborhoods safer."

 

[flenser]

I actually have been looking at Webb for awhile now and I believe he is very sincere about criminal justice reform and serious drug policy changes. Too bad nobody knows who he is and I doubt he will have the funding to put himself out there as a serious candidate. How can an honest politician ever get elected (not saying Webb is, but I question the integrity of politicians with big money. Wherever big money plays, corruption won't be too far away) .

Jim Webb

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7707638

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/07...VA-Treat-Drugs-Like-Cigarettes-Not-As-A-Crime

http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_28426272/jim-webb-iraq-war-critic-and-democrat-will


Jim Webb on the issues: economy, gay marriage, veterans


By Ken Thomas Associated Press

Friday, July 3, 2015 - 5:30 p.m.


http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...jim-webb-issues-economy-gay-marriage-veterans


ECONOMY

Webb speaks about the need for economic "fairness" and ways of addressing the disparity between the wealthy and the poor. He has said he would pursue a tax overhaul if elected president and suggested he would reduce the corporate tax rate in exchange for eliminating numerous loopholes. Webb has said he would examine shifting tax policies away from income and more toward consumption. He has cited the need to repair crumbling roads and bridges and advocated for federal programs to fix the nation's infrastructure.

FOREIGN POLICY

In his presidential announcement, Webb noted that he wrote about the potential problems of going to war in Iraq five months before the 2003 invasion by the U.S. He has said the invasion of Iraq strengthened Iran and he's criticized President Barack Obama's use of force in Libya, saying it set a bad precedent in the region. He has called for the creation of a "new strategic doctrine" for foreign policy that would lay out the circumstances in which the U.S. would use military force. Webb has been wary of nuclear talks with Iran, saying the Obama administration and Congress "should be looking very hard at the actual terms of this agreement, which we on the outside cannot yet see or evaluate."

VETERANS

Webb was central in the passage of the post-Sept. 11 GI Bill for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking to attend college. He has said it "shows that you can get things done in the United States government; you can get over the paralysis and work across the aisle." He also pushed for ensuring that service members have enough time in the U.S. before being deployed overseas for another mission. He has also criticized the backlog of claims in the Veterans Administration system.

------

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

In the Senate, Webb championed ways to overhaul the nation's criminal justice system, pointing to the swollen prison population and the influx of incarcerated drug offenders since the 1980s. He held Senate hearings to address the matter, arguing the country was spending billions on non-violent offenders. In his announcement, he said: "It's wasting lives, often beginning at a very early age, creating career criminals rather than curing them. It's not making our neighborhoods safer."

I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I respect him because he votes what he speaks. I don't think any of the other candidates have the same level of integrity. I agree he doesn't stand a chance of being nominated. Even here in VA the media is studiously ignoring him.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

This is hilarious. Hillary should just withdraw from the race and let the Republican nominee take the presidency by acclamation. The result will be the same either way. LMAO



Hillary’s Rope Line Was Her ‘Michael Dukakis Tank Moment’

On Sunday, the political panel on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper blasted the Clinton campaign for the horrible optics of Mrs. Clinton use of a moving rope line to separate herself from the media during a 4th of July parade in New Hampshire.

CNN’s S.E. Cupp called the image “humiliating” and scolded the media who choose to “abide by Hillary Clinton’s rules of journalism” rather than force the candidate to answer their questions.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

 

[flenser]

Even odds on Hillary, 3:1 against Jeb and 7:1 against Rubio becoming president.

6:1 in favor of Hillary winning the primary. She's got a lot of frittering to do..

Election 2016 Presidential Polls

2016 US Presidential Election Betting Odds

 

[DTdr2]

Nothing from Hillary on the Chattanooga terror attack, but she did find time for…

https://vine.co/v/erQH0K9JthD

Get your "Chillary" drink koozi now

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

‘Abysmal’ New Poll: ‘Clinton Cash’ Has Destroyed Hillary Clinton’s Credibility

A new Quinnipiac University http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2261 released on Wednesday confirms that the bombshell revelations from the New York Times bestselling book Clinton Cash have blown a gaping hole in Hillary Clinton’s credibility and trustworthiness—even before a single dollar in negative campaign ads has been spent.

Quinnipiac University Poll assistant director Tim Malloy said Hillary Clinton’s numbers on honesty and trustworthiness “border on abysmal.”


The poll found Clinton losing to Republican presidential candidates Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in head-to-head matchups in the key states of Virginia, Colorado, and Iowa.
Since the Clinton Cash revelations of global graft and Clinton Foundation cronyism and personal enrichment rocked Washington, the poll found Iowa voters’ views of Clinton’s trustworthiness and honesty plunging from 45% in April down to 33% today.

In Colorado, 62% of voters said Clinton was not trustworthy and honest, versus just 34% who said she was. Just 39% of Virginia voters view Clinton as honest and trustworthy; 55% say she isn’t.

“Do Colorado voters trust Hillary? No, they do not. Do they think she cares about their needs? No, they do not,” said Malloy. “So the door is open to a GOP candidate voters can believe in.”

Quinnipiac’s Peter A. Brown added that Hillary “has lost ground in the horserace and on key questions about her honesty and leadership. On being a strong leader, a key metric in presidential campaigns, she has dropped four to 10 points depending on the state and she is barely above 50 percent in each of the three states.”

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015


WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/u...-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

 

[kawilt]

The Clinton's have been under an investigation of one sort or another off and on for at least 35 years. Talk about the attention span of the American people.

http://prorev.com/connex.htm

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and MATT APUZZOJULY 23, 2015

WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.

The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.

It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.

But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/u...-sought-in-hillary-clinton-email-account.html

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...h-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/


The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess.

 

[TheGuy85]

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...h-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/


The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess.

All the faulty allegations being thrown at Hillary are only going to help her win the election. People are going to start trusting Hillary over the right-wing and the media. And that's sad because nobody even trusts Hillary.