Hillary running for POTUS .

[Jeff Young]

And I think the last President who gave a fuck about ordinary folks was Lincoln. And that's a damn long time ago, and we're not going to see his like on Earth again. We'll get another fucking talking head who knows what we want better than we do.

good point. Maybe Truman. Maybe Roosevelt. Maybe the Gipper. Maybe Clinton, just a squooch.

But I agree Lincoln is the only one in a LONG time not beholden to money, who did it for the common good, and who made political sacrifices to benefit all.

 

[Jeff Young]

He can't run again. He's already served two terms. If he could run again, so would Bill, and bill isn't running again. Two terms is it.

There's only been one President who came back and served in the Supreme Court- Taft. But I suspect Obama wants to do it, and from time to time I've seen it mentioned. You heard it first from me, though.

As far as who is the next POTUS, I care less about this than I ever have before. The only one I really DON'T want is Ted Cruz. Anyone who can't get a mortgage to buy a house isn't someone I want in the White House.

Rubio has been through a bankruptcy I think and probably couldn't get one either.

James Webb, a Dem who was I think Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan years and has some cross party pull is looking at running. The Democrats really need a viable alternative to Hillary, but I think everyone is scared of her money.

The Republicans have another crazy cast of whack jobs, plus Jeb Bush who is reasonable but they all hate.

Like you said, hard to care this time around. Other than the whack jobs, all just slightly diferent shades of vanilla.

 

[Doug S.]

Funny, I don't remember you supporting Republicans during Mr. Obama's first mid-term election when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the presidency to keep that "check and balance".
If you remember Mr. Obama at the time indicated that elections had consequences and that Republican's "...can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back." Was he wrong? If you are supporting a Democrat to counter balance the Republican congress then in order to maintain the "check and balance function" you support the reelection of a Republican house and senate?

But your argument is fundamentally flawed given the actions of the Obama administration. Congress clearly has not been a "check & balance" function.

To quote from The Washington Post: "In unilaterally altering major legislation (welfare reform, immigration) he (Obama) has crossed a threshold that future presidents are likely to step over as well. If he can unilaterally decide not to enforce certain immigration laws future presidents can essentially ignore parts of tax, regulatory or civil rights statutes they don’t like. It is a recipe for serious damage to our constitutional system of checks and balances.

I somehow don't think the next Clinton presidency will be any less strident. Do you?

Your memory must be failing...I have ALWAYS maintained that if the Repubs controlled the house the Dems needed to control the senate...or vice-versa...even said that would force the two parties to work together.

I could not have been more mistaken, could I????

What we ended up with when the two parties each controlled one house of the legislature was gridlock based on partisan politics--NOBODY worked together, it was each party trying to gut the other. As for the POTUS being a source for "check and balance", yes, the power of the veto can be a great form of check and balance...and as for which party we each believe should be in that position, well, that's a philosophical difference between the two of us. I prefer the guy with the veto-pen to be more interested in supporting the majority of the population of our country rather than the (Romney's 2%) business community, which has demonstrated that Trickle Down doesn't happen...at least I don't know anyone in the lower-to-middle class who own their own Olympic dancing horse. End of story, unless you know something I don't.

Your complaint about H.C.'s "Emailgate" is flawed, too. Your claim that she violated federal law when she wiped that server clean is predicated upon your belief that she withheld governmental emails, but she claims that she did turn over all governmental emails before she wiped the server clean to get rid of personal emails related to family issues, to which the government has NO RIGHTS. You may not believe her, but in the absence of any difinitive proof then she is presumed to be innocent (unless one wishes to presume guilt, as you seem to).

As for "altering legislation"...executive orders have been used by every POTUS...B.O. did nothing unique or unusual.

But, Veek, I understand that you won't agree with me...would not expect you to. You are entitled to your beliefs just as are we all. Thanks for bringing your view point forward. Contrary to what you believe, I am not blind to the idea that we need to change what we've been doing, it hasn't been working. Unlike you, though, I think the way we need to go is to enact changes that benefit the "common man". Clinton has already said she will prioritize the health of the middle class (the "common man" in my eyes). My favorite Conservative, Chris Christie from New Jersey, hasn't come close to that and the TEA Party zealots are so far away from that position that they'd need a telescope much larger than the Hubble to see the writing on the wall. The middle class has made this country what it is, we can't afford to lose it....any more than we can all be rich.

Said it before, sayin' it again...we MUST change or the U.S. has even tougher times ahead...and I'm talking about armed insurrection as the conflict between the rich and the poor boils over. Regardless of who wins that conflict, there are no overall winners. Time to rethink our priorities.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

And I think the last President who gave a fuck about ordinary folks was Lincoln.

good point. Maybe Truman. Maybe Roosevelt. Maybe the Gipper. Maybe Clinton, just a squooch.

I kinda thought Jimmy Carter was on the side of "ordinary folks".

Maybe that's why he only served one term? (Oh, yeah..I forgot...that was b/c of his goofy alcoholic brother...was it Billy Carter and his "Billy Beer"?)

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I kinda thought Jimmy Carter was on the side of "ordinary folks".

Maybe that's why he only served one term? (Oh, yeah..I forgot...that was b/c of his goofy alcoholic brother...was it Billy Carter and his "Billy Beer"?)

Doug

I think it was because JC was not very good at the job.

 

[Pat]

Your memory must be failing...I have ALWAYS maintained that if the Repubs controlled the house the Dems needed to control the senate...or vice-versa...even said that would force the two parties to work together.

Your complaint about H.C.'s "Emailgate" is flawed, too. Your claim that she violated federal law when she wiped that server clean is predicated upon your belief that she withheld governmental emails, ... but in the absence of any difinitive proof then she is presumed to be innocent (unless one wishes to presume guilt, as you seem to).

Doug, re-read my email. I challenged your contention that if we have a Republican Congress, we therefore needed a Democrat President; hence the reason the Mrs. Clinton, as sole Democrat candidate, is entitled to the office. If I’m wrong, I’ll look forward to your supporting Republicans up for election in 2016 to maintain congressional control when Mrs. Clinton is elected next year.

If you assert Mrs. Clinton's "innocence" in regards to her mail, you must also believe:

Mrs. Clinton did not create a single email when she went to Libya in 2011 and the photo below is of her playing something of the nature of Farmerville on her phone, as on the date the photo was taken, as there were no corresponding emails turned over to the House Committee.

During the lengthy time gaps (months) in her submitted email records she conducted no government activity on her account. Either this means that Mrs. Clinton was completely off the job for critical weeks (months) of American foreign policy..... or she's lying.

She had her non-secure server and email out of convenience because she only wanted one phone to carry. Clinton: ‘I Have An iPad, A Mini iPad, An iPhone And A BlackBerry’ « CBS DC

Hacked emails between Mrs. Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal (a former aide and not in the State Department) discussing the Benghazi attack are forgeries. (He has been asked to testify before congress). The oldest memo sent is dated September 12, 2012 — mere hours after four Americans were killed in a deadly assault on the US consulate building in Benghazi.

Re-read the statues I cited, you believe she was compliant waiting two years and ignoring the AP FOIA request for her correspondence FOR YEARS (the AP has recently filed suit with the State Department for the documents) and that selective word search of her files will render a complete disclosure of her work related emails. As to Mrs. Clinton's track record, you might also then believe:

Mrs. Clinton was accurate when she said "there were no security breaches” with her private account". In spite of the fact that senior intelligence officers (Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and others) say the likelihood that her messages were hacked by several foreign governments as "very high". Yet while Mrs. Clinton's staff destroyed the contents for Congress and the AP to look at, the Russians, the Iranians and the Chinese certainly still have them. Many of those from Mr. Blumenthal have been released on Russian Television. Hillary Clinton's 'hacked' Benghazi emails sent to RT ? RT USA Time (and congressional testimony) will tell whether they have any credence.

When Mrs. Clinton says neither the federal government nor an independent third party has the right to review emails she sent as secretary of state if she deems them personal. “Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts,” her office says. This spelled out in the Foreign Affairs Manual under “Points to Remember About E-mail” – says there is “no expectation of privacy.” State Department guidelines say there is “no expectation of privacy” for personal emails sent by government employees on a department email system.
Are you allowed to conduct government business on private email? I wasn't.

Do you still believe:

The cause of the Benghazi attack was a You-Tube video,

She came under sniper fire in Bosnia (picture below).

The Clintons were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

Mrs. Clinton is now a selfless “person of the people” .

But after all, "What difference at this point does it make?". Even Nixon didn't destroy the tapes and Mrs. Clinton certainly learned a valuable lesson from a certain blue dress.

What we've seen so far is the movie trailer for the next Clinton presidency. All she has to do is not seriously screw up and the job is hers.

 

[Doug S.]

The conservatives must have LOVED him for this:

"President Carter reduced the top tax rate on capital gains to 28% from as high as 98%." (source--Wikipedia).

Carter may have seemed inept, but I remember him having a number of issues over which he was not in control...for example, the taking of the U.S. Embassy staff as hostages by Iran (and the resultant increases in fuel prices because of governmental sanctions against Iran) as well as runaway "stagflation" (as Wikipedia put it), but despite being a Democrat he seemed to be at odds with the party on many issues.

I think JC was the most independent POTUS in my memory...he seemed to have a soft spot in his heart for the underprivileged and acted whenever he could to benefit the middle class. I'll never forget that "fireside chat" he had with America when the petroleum crisis was at its height and the price of gasoline (for example) was rising at the pumps by a nickel/gallon every day...his comments that we could never again turn up the thermostat in winter...perhaps he really was overwhelmed by the job, but who could blame him with the embassy hostage crisis lasting over a year (what was it...452 days sticks in my mind).

I liked him.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

...the embassy hostage crisis lasting over a year (what was it...452 days sticks in my mind).

444 days.

'Hostages were released as Reagan was being sworn in or literally a couple minutes later.

Gee...I wonder why?

 

[Doug S.]

444 days.

Hostages were released as Reagan was being sworn in or literally a couple minutes later.

Gee...I wonder why?

Thanks for the correction, Larry...it's been a long time ago and I've slept since then.

Undoubtedly JC was viewed by the middle-eastern countries as ineffective...and Regan was probably perceived as much more hawkish.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Doug S.]

Doug, re-read my email. I challenged your contention that if we have a Republican Congress, we therefore needed a Democrat President; hence the reason the Mrs. Clinton, as sole Democrat candidate, is entitled to the office. If I’m wrong, I’ll look forward to your supporting Republicans up for election in 2016 to maintain congressional control when Mrs. Clinton is elected next year.

If you assert Mrs. Clinton's "innocence" in regards to her mail, you must also believe:

Mrs. Clinton did not create a single email when she went to Libya in 2011 and the photo below is of her playing something of the nature of Farmerville on her phone, as on the date the photo was taken, as there were no corresponding emails turned over to the House Committee.

Do you still believe:

The cause of the Benghazi attack was a You-Tube video,

She came under sniper fire in Bosnia (picture below).

The Clintons were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

Mrs. Clinton is now a selfless “person of the people” .

You're focusing on minutia regarding the checks and balances issue, Pat...my "conceptual" assertion was that it is a guaranteed train-wreck if one party controls both houses of the legislature and the executive office and that if we had different parties in control of the two houses of the legislative office (or, failing that, as we now know is true) a POTUS of a different party than those who control the legislative houses there would be SOME opportunity for checks and balances. It was never about B.O., it WAS about NOT giving ONE political party ALL of the power and watching them rum amok over the country's population, regardless of whether or not the party was the Democrats or the Republicans....and, yes, I will certainly support a Republican president as long as one of the houses of the legislature is controlled by the Democrats...I still believe in a system of checks and (most important in this case, given the magnitude of the difference between the Conservative movement and what I believe are the needs of the majority of the population of the U.S.) "balances"...the worst case scenario, IMHO, would be for one party to be in total control.

I think H.C. is watching porn on her smart- phone in that photo, perhaps White House video of one of her husband's trysts with "that woman" :laugh: .

As for the other questions:

I have never believed Benghazi was related to a You-Tube video, have always maintained it was an opportunistic attack by Jihadists.

As for Boznia...I really don't know, don't have enough information at this time to formulate an opinion. Guess I must have been stoned when that was in the news???? Perhaps Brian Williams took a few lessons from her?

Regarding the Clinton's being "broke", I doubt that...they must have had significant real-estate holdings and/or other "investments"...but "cashless"??? Perhaps. It must have been expensive for Clinton to fight the impeachment proceedings, so maybe they were a bit strapped.

Selfless? I don't even think the saints are "Selfless"...everyone of us has our own particular set of "needs" and H.C. is not immune, nor are you or I. What I do think about her is that she believes that the wealthy have the means to provide for themselves and if they don't do a good job of that it is because of bad choices, where-as the middle class and (particularly) the lower socio-economic class are under considerable stress due to issues over which they have NO choice options. That's why I am happy to see her saying she will focus on the health of the middle class, we really need them to power our economic "machine" due to the overwhelming magnitude of the size of the population considered "middle-class".

In the end my global perception is that she'll be elected (barring some sort of huge screw-up, which based on the "cool" manner in which she has handled stressful situations in the past doesn't seem to be like her) and that she'll do a fine job, although she'll be targeted by Conservatives for every little thing, it's just what they do :idea: .

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Pat]

As for the other questions:

I have never believed Benghazi was related to a You-Tube video

As for Boznia...I really don't know, don't have enough information at this time to formulate an opinion.

Regarding the Clinton's being "broke", I doubt that...they must have had significant real-estate holdings and/or other "investments"...but "cashless"???

Thanks for your insights Doug. The Clinton minutiae I refer are felonious breach of statutes, the compromise of the correspondence of the Office of the Secretary of State as well as the overall picture of integrity that the repeated straying from the truth that seems prevalent with Mr. and Mrs. Clinton.

She was in charge of the Department of State but bears no responsibility for the four deaths in Bengasi, or the “Russian Reset” (they invaded Crimea, and are now selling missiles to Iran). How about in 2011 she told CBS “Face the Nation” viewers that the US would not interfere in Syria because Bashir Assad is a “reformer.” How are things in Libya after the demise of Mr. Kaddafi?

Will she honor the deal with Iran struck by the Obama administration? If so, how will the United States maintain close ties with Arab allies (when her foundation has been the recipient of millions from Arab coffers) who openly oppose a relationship with Tehran .

"I have never believed Benghazi was related to a You-Tube video", but Mrs. Clinton said it was.

As for Bosnia, Mrs Clinton said when she arrived in Bosnia on March 25, 1996, "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." That was when the picture I posted was taken.

Regarding the Clinton's being "broke" happened to be the year they earned over $12M.

If integrity matters, Mrs. Clinton comes up a bit shy.

But after all, "What difference at this point does it make?" ... as long as she doesn’t own a horse right???.

But what about cattle futures? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm;)

With skills like that she needs to be Secretary of the Treasury...

 

[Doug S.]

If integrity matters, Mrs. Clinton comes up a bit shy.

As do all politicians, IMHO. In academia they call the field "Political Science", but IMHO it is far from a science, it's all smoke and mirrors and illusion and confusion and...well, nothing seems to be scientific about it to me, at all. There are probably a few who have truly great motivations to enter the field, but by the time they have worked their way up through the ranks of local, state and regional politics and have broken into politics on the national level, they are all (IMHO) so corrupted that their integrity has been LONG gone.

A notable exception seems to be Chris Christie, who acknowledges (maintains???) that he had no prior knowledge of "Bridgegate". IF he's telling the truth, at least he had the integrity to acknowledge his failure to ensure that he was informed regarding the actions of his staff. Not many pols are willing to admit their failures/mistakes like Mr. Christie.

But after all, "What difference at this point does it make?" ... as long as she doesn’t own a horse right???

LOL!!! She may not have a horse, but I'm sure she has other very valuable "issues" that might alienate her from the lower-to-middle class (like cattle???); however, she does keep them private rather than flaunting them in the faces of the people who are having trouble putting food on the table for their kids. As I watch her on TV she doesn't seem to be spending huge $$$ on fashion or on haircuts/beauty treatments...she looks very much like the lady you might see walking down the sidewalk ahead of you, just an everyday person.

BTW...the link regarding cattle futures doesn't work, it just comes up:
" We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available"

Having grown up in and continually returned to a farming culture all my life, I was certainly interested in how successful H.C. has been in gambling on the "futures". Perhaps the best way to go broke (other than believing you could make money building "component cars") is betting on pork futures...how far behind that can cattle be?

[EDIT--Well, she appears to have done well, although not always. There were questions regarding the trades, but those issues were reportedly investigated and here is what the Post had to say about the answers: "The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.

Even allocated trades would not necessarily have benefited Clinton, Melamed added. "I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions," he said."]

Ya gotta admit, Pat, that the Romneys did not present as anything other than incredibly wealthy and not at all interested in the welfare of those who weren't. The horse was just the icing on the cake, so to speak...

We'll see whether or not H.C. follows the Romney precedent of withholding income tax records from the public during the campaign. The more you hide, the more it shows that you really do have things you need to hide. I think H.C. will be more forthcoming....just my impression, though, we'll have to wait and see.

It's amazing the way the Republicans have managed to shoot themselves in the foot so often...first it was torpedoing McCain's campaign ship with Sarah Palin, then it was nominating someone who was SO FAR from the mainstream as Romney. B.O. may not have deserved to win those elections...but the Republicans sure did deserve to lose them!!!!

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Before it was said that Hillary was not responsible for the safety of the people in Benghazi, obviously she didn't read the following.

Duties of The Secretary of State

•Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
•Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
•Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
•Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
•Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
•Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
•Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
•Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
•Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
•Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
•Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
•Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
•Administers the Department of State;
•Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

 

[Doug S.]

Before it was said that Hillary was not responsible for the safety of the people in Benghazi, obviously she didn't read the following.

Duties of The Secretary of State

•Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
•Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
•Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
•Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
•Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
•Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
•Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
•Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
•Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
•Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
•Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
•Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
•Administers the Department of State;
•Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

I probably said that, Al...missed the one I bolded up above in that list.

So...does that mean she is responsible for all the U.S. military casualties in the Afghanistan conflict, or for that matter anywhere else in the world? Probably not...no more than it means she is personally responsible for making sure that the consulate in Benghazi was adequately protected.

I constantly "preach" the "BIG picture", commonly referred to by me as the "global concept". The Secretary of State "oversees" so many things that to allege that (s)he is personally responsible for the everyday operation of all those things you listed above is ludicrous, Al...no one person could do all of that (and, if I might add, it appears that Clinton and her entire staff could not have done all of those things you posted above...otherwise the Benghazi consulate would have been protected, and the functions of the Department of State and the Foreign Service would run more smoothly, to pick just two from the list.)

I often wonder what benefit would H.C. have gained by failing to 'ensure' protection for the Benghazi consulate...and can't figure out any single benefit.

I often wonder what benefit her political opposition might gain by continuing their "spin" on the Benghazi catastrophe...that's not too hard to figure out at all, is it :idea: ?

What is it that we call that.....oh, yeah, isn't it called "mud slinging"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I said this before, but in the 7 hours that the attack took place, we could have flown in help from about anywhere, even in the US. Everyone was too busy figuring out how to cover up.

 

[Doug S.]

After reading your post, Al, I thought it wise to do some research, so I googled "Benghazi consulate attack" and came up with some interesting stuff.

This first one is a bit suspect to me, because it comes from CNN, which I believe to hold favorable views of the B.O. administration. However, it does seem to be a rather thorough review of the report compiled by the Republican led (!!!) bipartisan committee which investigated the incident. It bears some attention...a short (maybe 2 minute) TV feature video clip and a copy of the body of the report. It seems to exonerate the government, at least to me, but I'm keeping an open mind and will keep looking for that "smoking gun" that would definitively identify H.C. as guilty of some wrong-doing. Here's a link to the news feature...I'll be back with more research.

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi accusations - CNN.com

[Edit: according to this timeline, a U.S. Military rescue team arrived around 1 AM and rescued some 30 people from the compound:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...c34e90-f62c-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

By around 4 AM (about 6 hrs and 20 minutes after the attack started) H.C. had issued a statement.]

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

They are all a pack of liars. None of them are worth a pinch of shit IMHO.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I think most of us can agree on that.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

It was reported down under today that Hillary had a very successful rally today and part of her platform is she will be the "workers" friend.
Well I am sure that Hillary works very hard herself, but I can't think of anyone further removed from the bloke or Sheila on the factory floor than HC.

 

[Dave Hood]

Pete:

We need a Bob Hawke in the US. Love him or hate him, at least you knew where he stood on issues that related to the common man on the street. "Any boss who sacks anyone for not turning up today is a bum." One of the greatest lines of all time.

Dave