Originally Posted By Mr X <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Pvm6Oj4A</a> Damn. Campaign not going as well as expected, I guess? What an entitled bitch she is. She almost had my vote "just because", but wow. If she can't handle this, how the hell is she going to handle Trump? What a mess this campaign is, honest to god. It's a national embarrassment on *both* sides. Pretty messed up when the most reasonable candidate for president is a self-avowed, Castro admiring socialist!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip She deserved to. No one likes being lied about. I was originally supportive of Bernie but he is starting to piss me off. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-did-not-get-money-from-the-fossil-fuel-industry/">http://bluenationreview.com/hi...ndustry/</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc RT is exactly right. Hillary responded to false accusations. >>It's a national embarrassment on *both* sides.<< Not even close. I'm more than proud of both Democrats running and will merrily cast my vote for whomever is the nominee. The Republicans, on the other hand, are royally boned.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***>>It's a national embarrassment on *both* sides.<< Not even close.*** Just because the clown car has reached new levels of depravity doesn't mean the other side is behaving admirably. Again, if she can't respond to something like this in a presidential fashion (and I'm not convinced that you and RT are right about it, but even if you *ARE* she shouldn't be acting like a royal bitch about it), how's she going to deal with Trump dragging out her mountains of dirty laundry sixty tweets a day?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo She doesn't have mountains of dirty laundry. Nothing sexist about "royal bitch". Nope.
Originally Posted By hopemax Really, this is not Presidental? There is nothing there. Just a woman aggressively denying an allegation made against her. But I guess it wasn't "Woman in a Meeting" speak so men can't handle it, and have to call her the b-word. What was it the "I'm sick of..." the finger point? And what exactly is Presidential language anyway? <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.holytaco.com/ranking-the-presidential-obscenities-8-foul-presidential-quotes/">http://www.holytaco.com/rankin...-quotes/</a>
Originally Posted By SuperDry I didn't see anything wrong with her response. The only thing unusual about it is that it's a politician responding directly to a question, rather than sidestepping the issue.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost How come the flaming @@@@@@@ can do that and he's a hero. I see nothing wrong with her defending herself, if indeed the accusation is false. Sanders doesn't usually allow people to fabricate stories. He has more scruples then that. I am from Vermont and have seen the good stuff that Sanders tries to do, and I have seen him be brutally honest about just about everything. But, if it's wrong, it's wrong!
Originally Posted By Mr X <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/01/sanders-asks-clinton-for-an-apology-as-sparring-continues-over-fossil-fuel-donations/">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...nations/</a> ***SHEBOYGAN, Wis. -- Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders asked for an apology Friday from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for saying that his campaign had lied about contributions she has received from fossil-fuel interests. “Secretary Clinton owes us an apology,” the senator from Vermont told a crowd here. “We were not lying. We were telling the truth.” Sanders proceeded to detail for his audience the findings of a Greenpeace study asserting that Clinton’s campaign and a supportive super PAC have received $4.5 million in donations raised or given directly by employees and lobbyists for the oil, gas and coal industries. The latest development in the episode underscores how testy things have become between the two rivals in advance of Tuesday’s Democratic primary in Wisconsin.***
Originally Posted By Mr X ***She doesn't have mountains of dirty laundry*** <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thehornnews.com/clinton-sued-election-fraud/">http://thehornnews.com/clinton...n-fraud/</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html">http://www.foxnews.com/politic...obe.html</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://observer.com/2016/03/bombshell-clinton-foundation-donors-flight-from-justice-aided-by-hillary-allies/">http://observer.com/2016/03/bo...-allies/</a> ...and that's just pulled from CURRENT headlines, never mind the decades Trump has to sift through...and no, "dirty laundry" doesn't necessarily mean crimes, and it doesn't have to be provable either. The Obama family has maintained their integrity admirably, THEY don't have dirty laundry. The Clintons, though? Come on. ***Nothing sexist about "royal bitch". Nope.*** Please. I also think Trump is a flaming asshole, how's that any different?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***She doesn't have mountains of dirty laundry*** <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://thehornnews.com/clinton-sued-election-fraud/">http://thehornnews.com/clinton...n-fraud/</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html">http://www.foxnews.com/politic...obe.html</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://observer.com/2016/03/bombshell-clinton-foundation-donors-flight-from-justice-aided-by-hillary-allies/">http://observer.com/2016/03/bo...-allies/</a> ...and that's just pulled from CURRENT headlines, never mind the decades Trump has to sift through...and no, "dirty laundry" doesn't necessarily mean crimes, and it doesn't have to be provable either. The Obama family has maintained their integrity admirably, THEY don't have dirty laundry. The Clintons, though? Come on. ***Nothing sexist about "royal bitch". Nope.*** Please. I also think Trump is a flaming asshole, how's that any different?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm just not sure if there is much "there" there. Republican enemies have been trying to bring down the Clintons for 20 years now, and have never been able to prove anything. My main problem with Sanders is that his proposals will go nowhere. If he pushes them we will have even greater gridlock in Congress than we do at present. I do have to admit that I still wish Biden had chosen to get in the race. I think a Biden presidency would provide good continuity of Obama's policies, and Obama has been a wonderfully effective president.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I'm just not sure if there is much "there" there. Republican enemies have been trying to bring down the Clintons for 20 years now, and have never been able to prove anything. My main problem with Sanders is that his proposals will go nowhere. If he pushes them we will have even greater gridlock in Congress than we do at present. I do have to admit that I still wish Biden had chosen to get in the race. I think a Biden presidency would provide good continuity of Obama's policies, and Obama has been a wonderfully effective president.
Originally Posted By Mr X I get that, RT. I'm just not sure Hillary is all that much better. Particularly against a hostile house (still likely to remain so even if the senate flips), will republicans even bother to give her the time of day? Granted, they won't for Sanders either, but at least Sanders will push back hard from the bully pulpit. If the congress were to somehow flip all the way to the left, THEN I would agree with you that Hillary would be more effective. I don't think the democrats would work willingly with Sanders. Frankly I'm not holding out hope for anything good over the next four years, aside from the fact that the Supreme Court will likely be changing significantly (as the right wing recently learned, it's coming down to "like it or not" any way you slice it), and I hope there's a liberal in the white house when that happens.
Originally Posted By Mr X Here's Hillary herself slamming Obama on the VERY...SAME...ISSUE (for those who are claiming it's a lie, pay careful attention to how her ad lays it out because that's what's happening here, too). <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3satJnoBXi8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...tJnoBXi8</a>
Originally Posted By Yookeroo Like I said, there aren't mountains of dirty laundry. Mountains of Rove bullcrap? Sure. "I don't think the democrats would work willingly with Sanders." Neither will Republicans. I fail to see how Bernie would be more effective then anyone else. It's hard to see Bernie willing to compromise ever. And the idea that he's demanding an apology is fairly ridiculous.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Like I said, there aren't mountains of dirty laundry*** Om, okay. So Bill Clinton *didn't* interfere in the Massachusetts primary? Hillary Clinton *isn't* currently under investigation by the FBI? These are not Rove hits, they're factual reports. But keep telling yourself voters in November will ignore all of that (and what the Republicans will whip it all up into) and merrily vote Clinton.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Clinton is under investigation, but unless Comey finds criminal wrongdoing, it's likely to fizzle. He doesn't seem like a Kenneth Starr type, who failed to find much with Whitewater, and so morphed it into investigating something else, and finding little there also, morphed it into something else, until finally finding Monica. I'm not defending Hillary, exactly. I think she and Bill have engaged in some behavior over the years that I'd characterize as shady. Which has given huge openings to their political adversaries. But I also think that their adversaries have in most cases inflated shady into criminal, or even "oh my God, they need to rot in jail for 40 years for this!" Part of the problem, of course, is how many shady things in politics ARE perfectly legal, and arguably shouldn't be. Have the Clintons indulged in some of them? I'd say yes, but how much "shady but not illegal" hurts in the long run is an open question. <But keep telling yourself voters in November will ignore all of that (and what the Republicans will whip it all up into) and merrily vote Clinton.> Well, the polls are saying at this point that Hillary would win handily over Trump. Much of that is disgust at Trump, of course, so how "merrily" people vote for Clinton is an open question. But just on the shadiness scale, I think Trump University (which he's being sued for, and could be shown to be an outright scam) may be worse than anything on Hillary's ledger. And though most voters don't see her as trustworthy, the only candidate running who has even worse numbers on that score is... Trump. Part of the thing with Hillary is that the GOP has been attacking her for literally 25 years. So of course they'll try to whip up more, but it's hard to say if the previous whippings up will hurt her (more drip drip drip of scandal) or in a weird way kind of immunize her. She didn't actually kill Vince Foster or issue a "stand down" order in Benghazi, so there gets to be a "GOP crying wolf again" quality. On the other hand, many people outside New York are unaware of Trump's shady dealings over the years. I'm sure they'll be familiarized with them if he becomes the GOP nominee. And new (to them) allegations are usually worse than "old news," and can't possibly help him reverse his already in the toilet numbers on trustworthiness.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "and what the Republicans will whip it all up into" Much less than "he's a socialist who's going to raise your taxes". That's real electable. I'll take the nothing burger that is the email "scandal" over that. An investigation that's unlikely to find anything is hardly a "mountain".
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Well, the polls are saying at this point that Hillary would win handily over Trump.*** True enough, though this far out it's hardly reassuring. The fact that she *can't* beat the others (at least not easily), even CRUZ, is telling. The Republicans would be smart to blow up Trump, even with all the short-term blowback that's surely entail, but ONLY if they can convince him not to mount a 3rd party assault (and who can really guarantee that!?). ***Much less than "he's a socialist who's going to raise your taxes". That's real electable. I'll take the nothing burger that is the email "scandal" over that.*** They said the same about Obama, and look where that got 'em. Granted, it's actually *true* this time around, but I wonder if they've cried wolf once too often in that regard for it to have much of an impact. I do agree with you that Sanders is just as (or almost as) vulnerable as Clinton. It's really flabbergasting that the Democrats couldn't come up with a more inspirational bunch against what should be an easily trouncable joke of a Republican field, but there we are. My thoughts are, if it's Clinton vs. Trump, there will be a lot of disgusted "well, I hate them both so screw it!", and then whoever's got the most whipped up base wins (yikes!) — whereas in a Sanders vs. Trump situation, I think a lot of moderate folks will think "sure, he's a kooky old bastard but we'd really better get out there and stop that monster Trump". I could be wrong, and there's no way to see both scenarios play out anyway but that's my feeling on the matter. Nobody is even close to as reviled as Trump, EXCEPT Hillary, fairly or otherwise. ***An investigation that's unlikely to find anything is hardly a "mountain".*** It's not about the heft of the individual issues, it's the sheer number of them that amount to mountains.
