80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:06 pm
@parados,
The key phrase you used there is "She had lawyers that made the determinations." Who are her lawyers to determine? It should be the govt determining if she turned over the emails. The govt was never able to determine if she turned them all over because she wouldn't allow them access. Once again we have to take her word for it.

Quote:
Most if not all politicians have had to file amended reports on campaign financing.

Bait and switch time! She didn't refile paper work on campaign donations, it was "donations" to the Clinton fund. Over 1000 re-files had to be done. They didn't do this by choice, they did it to get ahead of the Clinton Cash book that is coming out and caught them not disclosing the foreign donations. Like I said, it is only an accident when they are caught.

Remember non-citizens are not allowed to donate to campaigns unless they have a green card. Can you imagine the defense you would have to mount if she was taking donations from foreign people's or countries? What types of inventive excuses would you come up with then?

I can prove most of what I have said. I have the facts, you have nothing but Hillary's excuses. Do you honestly think a server can't have more then one email domain on it? Weak explanations at best from someone who doesn't know how servers work or what they can do. You will swallow anything Hillary puts in front of you. By the way, your explanation for her actions on the email server are yours alone. She never explained why she did it. Only that it was done when it was found out she was keeping a private email server and wouldn't grant access to the govt to verify what she told them.
roger
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:19 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

It 's also illegal to put ANY sensitive government information on a private server that is outside the government;s control.

And if you think Secs of State are sending classified documents by email then you clearly need your head examined.


We won't know, will we? She saw to that, and long after she was replaces as Secretary of State. Interesting timing, eh?
parados
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:25 pm
@Baldimo,
Donations are donations are donations. Paperworks is refiled all the time by every non profit and every politician. Most mistakes are found out before the refiling occurs otherwise there would be no reason to refile since no one would know there was a mistake.

Obviously, her word isn't good enough for you. We established that a long time ago. Your not trusting her word isn't evidence of anything other than you don't trust her.

Oh good god, now you are bringing up stuff she isn't doing and saying I wouldn't be able to defend her? Do you have any other idiotic statements you want to make?

Obviously you are going to continue to spin your story and claim that it is factual. Good job. Let us know when you have anything more than "You don't trust Hillary" because clearly you don't have any facts with which to smear her.
parados
 
  3  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:28 pm
@roger,
We won't know a lot of things but in most cases without evidence I will discount them.

We don't know if the emails the Bush administration deleted showed they were taking foreign money. We don't know if the emails the Bush administration deleted showed they were releasing classified information without authorization. We don't know if the emails the Bush administration deleted showed they were bringing underage hookers into the WH. We don't know a lot of things but we have no evidence to assume anything must be true.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:31 pm
@parados,
I am amazed that this discussion of Hillary has so few mentions of...

...Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi!

Gotta give them credit for that.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:47 pm
@parados,
[url]Donations are donations are donations. Paperworks is refiled all the time by every non profit and every politician. Most mistakes are found out before the refiling occurs otherwise there would be no reason to refile since no one would know there was a mistake.[/url]

Story switch much. You made the claim about campaign donations but that isn't what she had to file the paper work on. They only re-filed the disclosures after an outside group was ready to publish a book on the Clinton Foundation. They didn't file them before, it was only after they were caught. Without the book they wouldn't have done so and would have continued to make "mistakes".

Quote:
Obviously you are going to continue to spin your story and claim that it is factual. Good job. Let us know when you have anything more than "You don't trust Hillary" because clearly you don't have any facts with which to smear her.


It isn't my story to spin, it is the news and how she was found out. You would never accept half of this behavior from someone on the GOP side. Look at the lies the Dems told about Romney and his taxes by Harry Reid. Stop acting like your side of the isle is "clean and honest" when it comes to elections. The difference between Hillary and Romney is that the main stream news media is going to protect Hillary and discredit everything they can. With Romney they just turned a blind eye to the lies that were told.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 02:58 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
The difference between Hillary and Romney is that the main stream news media is going to protect Hillary and discredit everything they can. With Romney they just turned a blind eye to the lies that were told.


Oh, please, Baldimo...you are not going to trot out that old, tired MSM nonsense again.

The media covers everything...and your side gets more than its fair share of advocacy from the media...such advocacy as there is.

BOTTOM LINE: In November 2016, the electorate will choose a new president. Their voice will be heard...and I expect most will ignore the voice of Rupert Murdoch...the voice that tells you guys what to think and say.

My guess is that if Hillary is the Dem candidate, she will win big time.

We'll see.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
BOTTOM LINE: In November 2016, the electorate will choose a new president. Their voice will be heard...and I expect most will ignore the voice of Rupert Murdoch...the voice that tells you guys what to think and say.


This is as bad as admitting that the MSM is indeed in the pockets of the Dems. If the electorate only listens to the MSM, aka: NBC, ABC, CBS and the major newspapers, aka: New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Sun, Boston Globe. They are favorable to the left. Remember Candy Crowley speaking up for Obama, and then having to walk back her comments after the debate? This is the MSM and the Dems.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:27 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
It isn't my story to spin, it is the news and how she was found out. You would never accept half of this behavior from someone on the GOP side.

I call bullshit. I do accept that behavior on the GOP side because I have standards that I apply to everyone. You on the other hand seem to have unrealistic standard for Hillary that you don't apply to everyone else.

Let me make this simple for you. Every agency that has to report to the Federal government relies on employees doing it correctly. Employees are human. They make mistakes, they may not have all the information, they may not understand the reporting requirement correctly. Because of that almost every organization including politician's campaigns report things wrong. Most of them at one time or another have had to amend their filings. Amending filings are not evidence of some sinister intent. It's simply a fact of life. Why do you want to not include many organizations in your standard you apply to the Clinton Foundation? That alone shows you are not being honest with your standards.

Quote:
Look at the lies the Dems told about Romney and his taxes by Harry Reid.
So because Harry Reid did it, that means you can do it? Good Job. Do you always do what those you hate do? Next thing you will be filing paperwork wrong and claiming it's OK because you think Hillary did it further showing us how little moral standing you have on the issue.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:42 pm
@Baldimo,
Well, I guess you are going to stick with the conservative fantasy that the MSM is dominated by LIBERALS...when in fact, the conservatives often outnumber the liberals everywhere.

If Hillary wins...it will be because the electorate chose her, Baldimo.

But I like the fact that you are already thinking of excuses. Good move on your part. No need to wait 'til the last minute.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Wed 6 May, 2015 03:42 pm
@Baldimo,
Baldimo wrote:
This is as bad as admitting that the MSM is indeed in the pockets of the Dems.

Or maybe the mainstream media are simply reporting reality, and my role model Paul Krugman has a point when he says that reality itself has a well-known liberal bias.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 04:04 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
, and my role model Paul Krugman has a point when he says that reality itself has a well-known liberal bias.


That is nothing more than the school of liberalism making the undocumented assertion that it is right. I tend to like people who run skeptical, so that nonsense gets nowhere with me.
Thomas
 
  6  
Wed 6 May, 2015 04:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye wrote:
I tend to like people who run skeptical, so that nonsense gets nowhere with me.

I don't mean to wound your ego, but getting somewhere with you is not now, has never been, and will probably never become, a priority of mine.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Wed 6 May, 2015 04:35 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:


I don't mean to wound your ego, but getting somewhere with you is not now, has never been, and will probably never become, a priority of mine.


You missed the memo that I am Zen.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:12 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
No way, he talked about it. He gave a bunch of morality lectures. But he only made a half assed effort at xoing anything.

He did much more than that. He made an all-out effort to force it through Congress, burning all of his political capital in the process.

We defeated him in the end, but it took some hard fighting on our part.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:12 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
Oh, please, it don't matter what issue Obama brings up or when, the republicans are going to be against it or remain as silent as possible. He has never had any political capital with the republicans.

Presidents always have political capital when they are elected.


revelette2 wrote:
If Sandy Hook never happened and 2013 debate never happened, republicans still would not have compromised on any of Obama's agenda and they didn't before the debate.

The same political capital that was used to force Congress to take up gun control against its will, and to open it to a floor debate against its will, could also have been used to pass some sort of legislative agenda if it had been used wisely.


revelette2 wrote:
Moreover, Hawkeye is right in that democrats are more divided on the issue of gun control than the more left wing of the party would like.

That does not change the reality that Mr. Obama foolishly wasted all of his second-term political capital attacking the NRA instead of trying to pass useful legislation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Wed 6 May, 2015 05:13 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
There is no confusion whatsoever.

But it seems your story has taken a slight turn.

Okay...that happens.

No turn in my story. My prediction is the same as it was two years ago.


Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, I think Hillary, if she is the top of the Dem ticket, will win...and win handily. So in effect, Oralloy, I am saying it is my opinion that your analysis of the impact of the supposed defeat of the NRA against Obama is a miscalculation on your part.

In November 2016 we will see.

Wait we must.

I agree.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Wed 6 May, 2015 11:36 pm
Quote:
It's very hard to win three presidential elections in a row, so all else being equal and even if Hillary Clinton didn't exist, it isn't a great cycle to run if you are a Democrat," said Thomas Schaller, chair of the political science department at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Scared by Hillary
In fact, it is almost impossible to keep the White House after your party controlled it already for eight years. The only time this happened since World War II was in 1988 when Republican Vice President George Bush senior won after eight years of Ronald Reagan. The last time the Democrats held the presidency for 12 years in a row was in 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt under extraordinary circumstances won a third term.
As for the second reason, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to run that simply took the air out of most remaining contenders who may have been mulling a run after eight years of a Democratic presidency.
"Most Democrats have just been scared off entering," said Julian Zelizer, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. "They realize that when you have someone of this stature and caliber that a lot of the fundraising will be difficult, that a lot of the voter attraction process will be difficult. And I think part of it is simply being intimidated by Hillary Clinton."

http://www.dw.de/few-democrats-dare-run-against-odds-and-hillary-clinton/a-18430050

I am not buying it, this sounds like excuse making and rationalizations set up to keep minds from going where reality would normally take them. Hillary got a unanimous win in the money election, there is no money to fund other candidates. Because thats what Hillary and the rest of the party bosses want to happen.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  -1  
Thu 7 May, 2015 08:15 am
The "Clinton's era" is nothing but a silly illusion.

Bill Clinton wasn't the great president as people assumes he was.

His "surplus" NEVER HAPPENED.

People is looking in Hillary the return of an illusory era of good economy that never happened.

In reality, the national debt continued increasing its average rate regardless of Clinton's efforts to demonstrate the contrary. His administration invented the idea that Clinton managed to stop over-spending and that the budget showed surplus.

That is a lie.

People who believe in that lie are today's fanatics who have been brainwashed with story tales.

Check the chart of the national debt.

One can notice that the national debts with Reagan increased twice in his administration and after him started the current trend of selling the country in order to create a fake strong economy. The Clinton delusional "good economy" is shown in bold print in the quote below.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm

End of Fiscal Year Debt (9/30, in billions) GDP (Q3, in billions) Debt / GDP Ratio Event

Quote:
2014 $17,824 $17,600 101%

2013 $16,738 $16,872 99% Sequestration reduced government spending, at the same time the end of Obama's payroll tax holiday raised revenue. The U.S. debt hit $17 trillion a few days after the end of the fiscal year.

2012 $16,066 $16,066 99% Obama extended Bush tax cuts, combined with $900 billion in defense spending.

2011 $14,790 $15,587 95% Obama Stimulus Act (ARRA) spent $120 billion.

2010 $13,562 $15,058 90% ARRA budgeted $400 billion. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.

2009 $11,910 $14,384 83% Economy contracted 8.9% in Q4 '08, 6.7% in Q1 '09, lowering tax revenues. ARRA spent $241.9 billion. War on Terror cost $79 billion. Fed funds rate lowered to 0%.

2008 $10,025 $14,843 68% Economy contracted 3.7% in Q3 '08, 1.8% in Q1 '08. War on Terror cost $197.6 billion, Bank Bailout Bill cost $350 billion.
2007 $9,008 $14,570 62% Iraq War cost $131.6 billion.

2006 $8,507 $13,909 61% Katrina clean-up was $24.7 billion, swine flu added $6 billion, War on Terror cost $120.4 billion. Ben Bernanke became Fed Chair.

2005 $7,933 $13,205 60% War on Terror cost $107.6 billion.

2004 $7,379 $12,368 60% War on Terror was $94 billion.

2003 $6,783 $11,625 58% Unemployment still at 6%. War on Terror cost $53 billion.

2002 $6,228 $11,037 56% War on Terror added $33.8 billion.

2001 $5,807 $10,640 55% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.

2000 $5,674 $10,357 55%

1999 $5,656 $9,712 58%

1998 $5,526 $9,147 60%

1997 $5,413 $8,692 62%

1996 $5,225 $8,159 64%

1995 $4,974 $7,707 65%

1994 $4,693 $7,352 64%

1993 $4,411 $6,904 64% Bill Clinton passed Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

1992 $4,065 $6,587 62%

1991 $3,665 $6,218 59% 1991 recession.

1990 $3,233 $6,030 54% Desert Storm.

1989 $2,857 $5,712 50% Savings and Loan Crisis cost $125 billion.

1988 $2,602 $5,300 49%

1987 $2,350 $4,901 48% Alan Greenspan become Fed Chair.

1986 $2,125 $4,620 46% President Reagan lowered tax rates.

1985 $1,828 $4,395 42%

1984 $1,572 $4,087 38%

1983 $1,377 $3,692 37% Unemployment from the 1982 recession peaked at 10.8%.

1982 $1,142 $3,367 34% 1982 recession, GDP fell 6.4% in Q1 '82.

1981 $998 $3,261 31% Beginning of 1982 recession.

1980 $908 $2,860 32% 1980 recession, Iran oil embargo, GDP fell 7.9% in Q2 '80.

1979 $827 $2,670 31% Volcker became Fed Chair, increasing Fed funds rate to 20% to combat inflation.

1978 $772 $2,399 32%

1977 $699 $2,122 33%

1976 $620 $1,891 33%

1975 $533 $1,714 31% Unemployment from 1973-75 recession peaked at 9% in May, GDP was down 4.8% in Q1 '75.

1974 $475 $1,563 30% Fed raised rates to 13% to fight inflation. Nixon resigned over Watergate.

1973 $458 $1,437 32% OPEC raised oil prices. Nixon went off gold standard, tripling inflation to 9.7%. Fed doubled interest rates. Vietnam War ended.

1972 $427 $1,294 33% Nixon won re-election in a landslide.

1971 $398 $1,180 34% Nixon imposed wage price controls and suspended gold standard. Unemployment from 1970 recession peaked at 6.1% in December

1970 $371 $1,089 34% GDP down 4.2% in Q4 '70. Arthur Burns becomes Fed Chair.

1969 $354 $1,032 34% Nixon became President.

1968 $348 $952 36% Johnson sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam.

1967 $326 $867 38% LBJ created PBS, Product Safety Commission and Air Quality Act.

1966 $320 $821 39% Fed raised interest rates to 5.76% to fight a mild 3.5% inflation.

1965 $317 $750 42% Johnson funds Great Society, creating Medicare,
Medicaid and HUD. Sends 100,000 troops to Vietnam. War's total cost will be $111 billion.

1964 $312 $693 45% LBJ announces War on Poverty.

1963 $306 $645 47% Military coup in Vietnam, aided by 16,000 U.S. advisers. Kennedy assassinated.

1962 $299 $610 49% Cuban Missile Crisis.

1961 $289 $568 51% JFK became President. Bay of Pigs. Unemployment peaked at 6.1% in Dec.

1960 $286 $546 52% 1960 recession started in April. GDP fell 4.2% in Q4 '60.

1959 $285 $525 54% Fed raised rates to combat 7.25% growth rate.

1958 $276 $487 57% GDP fell 4.2% in Q4 '57, and another 10.4% in Q1 '58. Unemployment peaked at 7.1% in Sep '58.

1957 $271 $480 56%

1956 $273 $452 60%

1955 $274 $431 64%

1954 $271 $392 69% Recession follows end of Korean War.

1953 $266 $392 68% Korean War ends, total war cost $30 billion.

1952 $259 $368 70%

1951 $255 $352 73%

1950 $257 $309 83% Korean War starts.

1949 $253 $273 92% 1949 recession.

1948 $252 $280 90%

1947 $258 $250 103%

1946 $269 $228 113% GDP fell 11%.

1945 $259 $228 116% 1945 recession due to end of WWII. War cost $296 billion.

1944 $201 $225 89%

1943 $137 $203 67%

1942 $72 $166 44%

1941 $49 $129 38% Attack on Pearl Harbor, US entered WWII, ending the Great Depression.

1940 $43 $103 42%

1939 $40 $94 43%

1938 $37 $87 43%

1937 $36 $93 39%

1936 $34 $85 40%

1935 $29 $74 39%

1934 $27 $67 40% World trade is down 66% from start of Depression.

1933 $23 $57 39% Roosevelt took office, New Deal signed. Unemployment peaked at 25%.

1932 $19 $60 33% Hoover worsened depression by raising taxes to balance budget.

1931 $17 $77 22%

1930 $16 $92 18% Stock Market Crash of 1929. Congress passed Smoot-Hawley Tariffs.

1929 $17 $105 16% Hoover maintained high wage controls. Fed raised discount rate to defend gold standard, creating deflation. Combination forces bankruptcies on businesses.


To understand better the chart from above:

In economics, the debt-to-GDP ratio is the ratio between a country's government debt and its gross domestic product (GDP). A low debt-to-GDP ratio indicates an economy that produces and sells goods and services sufficient to pay back debts without incurring further debt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio

Notice that with Bill Clinton was an average over 50% with is high negative, and with Obama is an average 100% which is disastrous economy.

Do not expect better with Hillary Clinton.
parados
 
  3  
Thu 7 May, 2015 10:19 am
@carloslebaron,
You are confused carlosbaron.

Clinton had a surplus which means the government took in more money than it paid out.
The debt increased because the part of the government that took in more money loaned it to the parts of the government that didn't have enough.



 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 10:29:07