When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Trump handed Bernie a plum last night...
...with his declarations that his money has bought influence from politicians. I assume that it would be illegal to lift the actual footage from the debates, but it certainly isn't illegal to quote him verbatim.

From the actual debate transcript:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/06/annotated-transcript-the-aug-6-gop-debate/

"BAIER: Mr. Trump, it's not just your past support for single- payer health care. You've also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use -- you've also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi.

You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors.

And you said recently, quote, "When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do."

TRUMP: You'd better believe it."

and

"TRUMP: Sounds good. Sounds good to me, Governor.

I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give.

And do you know what?

When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what did you get?

TRUMP: And that's a broken system."

Hillary Has Some Serious Explaining To Do


In one of the most spineless news dumps ever, Chuck Schumer announced his plans during the GOP debate to join the Republicans in undermining the President and pushing us towards war towards Iran. At the exact same time, an billionaire named Haim Saban also released a statement saying he opposed the deal and would fight it. What do these people have in common? They are top-tier Hillary Clinton surrogates. Chuck Schumer endorsed Hillary's 2008 run in 2006, and her 2016 run in 2013, the first senator to do so in both cases. Saban is a top donor to Clinton's Super PAC, having given $2m thus far.



Hillary was quite responsible for our first foray into the Middle East, duly joining George W. Bush and the neocons in a yes vote for an irresponsible and pointless war. Now, it appears she is sitting idly by as her highest level surrogates are ready to lock arms with Republicans and fight the President in favor of yet another war. She herself has given the most tepid possible backing to the deal, and has shown zero inclination toward fighting for votes to support the president. Here's the thing - Republicans really, really want a war with Iran. John McCain sang his cute little "bomb Iran" song 7 years ago, and nothing has really changed. Jeb Bush has surrounded himself with all the neocons who trumped up the circumstances for the Iraq war in 2003, and if you don't think they've already got the next war planned, you're delusional.



In 2003 we learned a lesson the hard way that if one party is really itching for war, and the other is split and/or muted in response, then we're getting war. Hillary herself claims to have learned her lesson from her disastrous vote to enable Bush's war. So why is it starting to look like the same story all over again? There is zero chance that Chuck Schumer, who is about to ascend to Democratic leadership of the Senate and is the Senate's most staunch Hillary supporter, did not consult with Clinton about what he was about to do. Same goes with one of her most prolific funding sources. So where is her leadership? How did she not learn from her previous mistake that giving the Republicans the Middle East war they crave is not going to end well?



There is no place for a Democratic presidential candidate who surrounds herself (or himself) at the highest levels with warmongers who look to undermine a Democratic president, as well as 5 other countries, in keeping peace while denying Iran nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton needs to forcefully declare that she supports the President and the Democratic party in preserving peace. Inaction and/or more muddled statements while her surrogates beat the war drums will serve to show that she has learned absolutely nothing since 2003.


The ball is in your court, Hillary. It's time to see if you have really changed.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/07/1409589/-Hillary-has-some-serious-explaining-to-do

Not at all. I'm not sure you get it, though.

This started with someone mentioning that Trump donates to lots of different candidates...and so do others.

You said the practice should be stopped.

That prompted my question.

Now you are bringing in something that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

My question remains: Do you want to stop people from donating to political campaigns?

Or do you want to stop people from donating to whom they please...and as many as they please?

It's a hard one to argue that Perot benefited Clinton more than Bush.

Here is a good article using the actual polling from the time.
http://spectator.org/articles/63682/bushioisie-wrong-ross-perot-didn%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98cost%E2%80%99-ghw-bush-white-house-1992

As I read it he donated $8500 to Hillery when she was a N Y senator. Chump change for someone with his money.

I agree, Rabel, it is "chump change"; however, Hillary had to do something for the contribution. Trump also wanted to impress his new wife with the attendance of Hillary and Bill, people of great distinction and importance. Let us not forget, Bill and Hillary, one a former president of the US and the other a US senator in 2005, the year of Trump's 3rd marriage, were highly special and most people would have prized their attendance.

You are insane. Trump has a lot of his business in NYC, which is a D town, of course we was going to make a token contribution to Hillary.

You must be too young to have any sense of how the world works.

Eighty - five hundred might have gotten me to show up - unless I had to wear a tie.

The Art of the Deal... Bill Clinton asked him to run. The fix is in.

I think...ummmm...

...ummmm...

...well, let me put it this way:

Gee, whats with the tone? I answered you and someone else on the last page regarding that:

No I would not keep you from contributing as much as you want as an individual. I just want to know from whom, to whom, how much and for what.

No corporate free speech, no dark money, no secret. I'd like to do something about contributions for state office from out of state and foreign for national offices.

Sunshine is the biggest thing I want.

I was responded to the "its not too complicated"...and thought I did it reasonably and civilly. I apologize if I went over the line.



We were talking about Trump...and I am sure you can find out exactly how much he donated to every campaign to which he donated. The guy is a big mouth...and will tell all.





Well...do everything you can to get a Dem elected in 2016 then, because if the Rep's get elected..."no corporate free speech, no dark money, no secret" will not have a chance.




Then support a winner for the Dems...not a loser, because the one thing you know you will not get from anyone on the R clowncar...is SUNSHINE.

You may not get it from the D's either...but you WILL NOT get it from the R's.

There are several stories related to Clinton influencing Trump to screw with the opposition's election prospects. I decided to bring the Mother Jones take on it.

What a sweet deal for Trump and the Clintons.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/08/bill-clinton-donald-trump

This is from that Mother Jones article:

The Washington Post reports Clinton and Trump had a private phone call shortly before the GOP's newest star officially announced his candidacy. During the call, the former president—and spouse of the likely Democratic nominee—stopped short of outright pushing him to run for president. Instead, Clinton reportedly prodded Trump to seek a "larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape."

Now, help me out here. When someone says that this is what reportedly transpired in a private phone conversation, what level of credibility can we give the information we're receiving? It's kind of like the recent private "deathbed pleadings" that Maureen Dowd had direct quotes from in her article that started the latest round of rumors about a Biden candidacy. Now I don't doubt the Clintons are double-dealers, and I don't doubt that Biden is thinking about running. But, this kind of reporting seems real shoddy to me.

I feel very comfortable knowing that Clinton -in the very least - massaged Trump into running for president. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was more than manipulation or suggestion, but a tight deal worked out to benefit both.

If this was George Bush or Dick Cheney in the same scenario, making an admittedly politically-oriented phone call days before the recipient of the call announced his candidacy, I'm doubtful anyone here would be balking at the accusation...

Now Trump is bumbling out trying to deny what most people are thinking about the phone call.

The tone and subject of the phone call is taken from Trump admissions.

Another report: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/05/report-bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-shortly-before-billionaire-announced-his-presidential-bid/

That article sourced a little better:

"...according to The Washington Post which cited four Trump allies and one Clinton aide who were familiar with the call, which occurred in late May."

You're very defensive Lash. I wonder how well you'd want sources vetted for any negative news on "Bernie"?

All that aside, when you think about it, it does seem like a very slick political move on Bill Clinton's part.

I doubt it will matter too much with true Hillary Clinton supporters, most of them seem to accept that kind of a thing as a smart political move.

The part I found most interesting in the Mother Jones article was:



Sounds to me like the Clintons know how to deal with power...and the kinds of machinations needed to be an effective leader...how to move things in the direction in which they are aiming.

Not sure why "some people" see those things as negatives...but it takes all kinds.

I see it as a huge positive...and as a reason for wanting that kind of person as a leader...providing they have the political agenda I have.

Ooops, that post of yours got posted while I was composing mine.

We seem to agree on the general idea of the Clinton's competence to move things in the direction they want...which is an almost indispensable quality in an effective leader.

The article gives us reason to help elect Hillary.

I can't figure out why you think I'm defensive. Could you point to what I said that gave you that impression?