When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Let's face the facts shall we. He is much too old, almost 75. He can have a heart attack in any time. That is not very reassuring

That's ONE fact. More facts include that he is the only candidate in the past thirty years who hasn't been on the take. He's the only honest one running. He actively calls out the billionaires and salesmen that are ruining our form of government and he's the only one who's been telling the truth for the past 30 years.

I'll take my chances on the age thing. Actually, he's kept a rougher schedule BY FAR than I have over the past six months and he's obviously very energetic.

He's my ride or die.

How do you know he hasn't "been on the take"...or is this just another of your wild guesses?

And "the only one in the past thirty years?"

You know that for a FACT?



He may be no more honest than most of them.

Your myopia is blinding you to that possibility.




How do you know that? Or is that just another of your wild guesses?



I'll pass on this one. Sometimes it is better to say nothing!

Nina Turner changes her mind on Hillary Clinton, endorses Bernie Sanders for president

(Well worth reading the entire article.)

Nina Turner changes her mind on Hillary Clinton, endorses Bernie Sanders for president

By Henry J. Gomez - November 12, 2015 at 5:03 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio – Nina Turner, the former state senator from Cleveland and a top Ohio Democratic Party official, is ditching Hillary Clinton in favor of Bernie Sanders.

Turner and Sanders' presidential campaign confirmed the endorsement Thursday.

"I'm very attracted by his message and his style and that he has held pretty much strong on his beliefs and the world is catching up with him," Turner said. She added that Sanders' positions on voting rights and wage increases have stood out to her.

Turner spoke to cleveland.com by telephone before flying to Iowa, where she will attend Saturday night's Democratic debate featuring Clinton, Sanders and Martin O'Malley.

She also will introduce Sanders at his Monday night rally at Cleveland State University's Wolstein Center. The independent Vermont senator, who describes himself as a democratic socialist, has emerged as Clinton's strongest Democratic primary rival...

Full article:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/11/nina_turner_changes_her_mind_o.html

I'm about a month and a half younger than Bernie Sanders. I figure I've four more years and kicking, maybe more after that, and who are you, to not have a heart attack or stroke or colon cancer on the young side of it. I'm not into making him any icon, but he makes sense to me.

Much too old? Go wash your mouth out.


I do get wanting smart younger candidates, but those who might want to get into it face formidable difficulties, like money.

*ahem*
Trump. May not like him, but he is telling the truth and not on the take.

Republican apologists only read the parts that condemn the Clintons. The rest they just ignore. Its the republican way.

I didn't start anything, I was pointing out why Bill Clinton was so popular over here. He helped end the violence instead of fund it. It's one thing not caring about a country's domestic arrangements, it's quite another to fund terrorist outrages. We've never funded terrorist strikes in America, Americans paid for the murder of British civilians all the time until Bill Clinton came along.

Well, that is true! He is very sincere! By the way, what is his opinion about gay people in general ?

Clinton apologists overlook how corrupt they are like it's ok.

It's not ok.

I think what she has planned for the country is actually worse than the damage any Republican imbecile can do.

She is a major architect of TPP. Take a look at how that will further encroach on us. She and her husband opened the floodgates of Glass-Steagall that led to the disastrous economic failure, but nobody places responsibility where it belongs. Clintons line their pockets with our money and have the nerve to come back for more.

Apologists.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

Donald Trump on the issues.

It reads like a comic strip.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

Bill says we can't convict them...

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/11/bill-clinton-hey-no-ones-proven-were-corrupt-right/

source

I don't see how that contradicts my statement. Receiving unrequested donations of $50 is not equate to being "on the take".

$4 million in donations. It doesn't specify who or how much for each donation. However I agree, receiving donations does not necessarily mean being on the take.

I always felt Bill Clinton was a good moderate Republican. I voted for him in his re-election and if he were able to run again I'd vote for him again.

That said: he deregulated the banking industry and helped W cause the banking disaster, he adopted the UK data collecting program, Raptor; he also is the President who allowed the FISA court system gut the rights to due process.

These things are have been a blotch in his record that allowed the worst of civil rights abuses occur in GWB's abysmal administration.

I am proud of the things he accomplished helping tone down the violence in Northern Ireland, but a lot of that violence was authored by policies of the British government. Its taken forty years to start arresting the apparatus of the the Bloody Sunday outrages: British soldiers.

GWB's noble and admirable attempt to address the Palestinian mess in his past years don't erase the disaster of the rest of his time.

I would like to hear Bill address more of his "mistakes" and he has addresses some of them already - something few ex-Presidents do.

I also want Hillary to address her mistakes as a Senator, also.

We Americans feel privileged to comment in an uneducated way about your country and government. Please, please continued commenting on my country and government in your usual educated and informed way. I always look forward to it.

Still doing your best to get a Republican elected, Lash.

A stealth bomber...that's you.

Ain't gonna work.

Clinton's Corruption Problem and Saturday's Debate

Zephyr Teachout - HuffPo

Posted: 11/12/2015 4:29 pm EST Updated: 11/12/2015 4:59 pm EST
AP

<snip>

Hillary Clinton has some corruption problems. And this is a corruption election.

She can address it head on, but so far she hasn't done nearly enough. The last debate she was completely silent on the issue. To show she's serious, she needs a total commitment to the issue in Saturday's debate.

You can't have a serious conversation with any voter, left or right, without talking about money in politics. It is in every breath. Eighty-four percent of Americans believe money has too much influence over our political system and elected officials. The despair on the left and right, the excitement about Sanders, the almost desperate desire for anyone who will break up the current machine, the thirst for revolution, not just policy. That this is a corruption election is evidenced in Donald Trump's appeal: the voters I've met who support Trump even accept that he lacks credibility, but argue he doesn't lack independence -- unlike the other candidates. They are fleeing to him in droves not because he represents something positive, but because the corruption of the modern private financing model makes the other candidates feel like servants, instead of leaders.

And into this corruption moment comes Hillary Clinton, who has four big corruption problems. None of them have to do with Benghazi. The first is that she is intimately related to a foundation that raises millions of dollars on a daily basis from the most powerful corporations in the world. The second is that she and her husband have made millions of dollars in speaking fees from the most powerful corporations in the world. The third is that a Super PAC supporting her has raised money from individuals representing the most powerful corporations in the world. And the fourth is that shared by all candidates -- her fundraising relies on donations from the most powerful wealthy individuals in America.

If Hillary Clinton wants to light up the country in either the general election or the primary, she needs to take a leadership role -- not a lip service role -- in a basic, in-the-guts overhaul of how politics works in this country.

So far, she's come out against Citizens United, and in favor of publicly financed elections.

But she hasn't taken a leadership role. She's merely used the phrase "Citizens United" as an applause line. And her support for publicly financed elections occurred on one day, two months ago, and she hasn't mentioned it since. That's not leadership. That's just saying what she thinks reformers want to hear, and then acting in the opposite way.

Clinton should...

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zephyr-teachout/clintons-corruption-probl_b_8547556.html

What exactly are you suggesting, Bobsal...asking candidates like Hillary Clinton to come to a gun fight with a pea shooter?

Yeah...money is needed in larger and larger amounts to fund a campaign for damn near anything in our country right now. But you either play the game the way the game is being played...or you essentially forfeit the game.

If money is as essential to winning as everyone seems to think it is...anyone not taking money from almost everyone and anyone...is simply someone NOT committed to winning.

I do not want a candidate not committed to winning. I want a candidate who is "all in."

Yeah, Hillary takes money from powerful corporations; she and her husband have made large speaking fees from powerful corporations; she has a superPAC with ties to powerful corporations...and she raises funds from wealthy people.

I applaud that. It is the way things are being done right now. If she were to unilaterally decide not to do so...at the expense of having her opponents get the money...she would be a loser in my book.

So are you advocating that the person most likely to protect and extend our already endangered safety net programs come to this foray with a pea shooter while her opponents are bringing AK47's?

Because if you are...you are doing the progressive agenda a terrible, terrible disservice.

What the heck.This is about ethics and taking defensible positions to those of whom one wants to vote for one. The cranky white haired cynic you pretend to be in his heart of hearts understands it isn't that nobody trusts Congress, its that nobody believes that a large most of Congressmen have any sort of ethics.

How about someone as strong as Hillary Clinton, the most probable next President, come out and set a standard of at least factual based policy? I give a big hand to the the former Gov of the great state of Ohio - Kasick - who made the most honest appraisal of the immigration mess tRump and his ilk want to create. And he barely got luke-warm applause. I bet he isn't standing at any table next "debate". But we do need more. Christie talking about drug addiction a few weeks back is a third example.

Too bad we can't graft all the individual good pieces of these characters into one cohesive statesman.

Three points of light, right?

"Guns", eh.