3rdnlng Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Obama. Hey, the 22nd Amendment says he can't be elected more than twice, it doesn't say he can't run. Can't he just stay in office by executive order?
Koko78 Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 Can't he just stay in office by executive order? All he needs is a pen, a telephone and a teleprompter to be President for life.
/dev/null Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 All he needs is a pen, a telephone and a teleprompter to be President for life. Scary part is there are people that would support such a move
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 2, 2015 Posted February 2, 2015 Scary part is there are people that would support such a moveYes, they're called liberal Democrats.
B-Man Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 How will Hillary Clinton explain this one to women? The revelations out of David Axelrod’s forthcoming memoirs just keep coming. This afternoon, we learned one of the biggest bombshells to emerge thus far from Axelrod’s tell-all. Clinton allegedly planned to appoint her 2008 rival, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), to serve as her attorney general if she had won the White House in exchange for his endorsement on the campaign trail. “Hillary’s camp was desperate to escort him out the door,” Axelrod writes. The Edwards’ deal allegedly came with the condition that he endorsed her bid for President. “He wants to know that there would be a place for him with Barack down the line,” Axelrod quotes an Edwards advisor saying. “I recognized a squeeze play when I saw one, and immediately scrambled up some vague assurances. This is a problem for Clinton. In the alternate universe in which Clinton secured Edwards’ endorsement, she is soon forced to explain to voters – particularly all those women whom she purported to represent – why her backer, whose support she enthusiastically accepted, had an extramarital affair while his wife was dying of cancer. Not only that, but that he had fathered a child out of wedlock with his mistress and lied about it to the voters. more at the link:
IDBillzFan Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 How will Hillary Clinton explain this one to women? The revelations out of David Axelrod’s forthcoming memoirs just keep coming. There is a part of me who unjustifiably feels that Barry would rather die than see Hillary succeed him, and has every intention of ensuring she loses 2016 by sheer embarrassment.
Doc Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 How will Hillary Clinton explain this one to women? The revelations out of David Axelrod’s forthcoming memoirs just keep coming. This afternoon, we learned one of the biggest bombshells to emerge thus far from Axelrod’s tell-all. Clinton allegedly planned to appoint her 2008 rival, former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), to serve as her attorney general if she had won the White House in exchange for his endorsement on the campaign trail. This is a problem for Clinton. “Hillary’s camp was desperate to escort him out the door,” Axelrod writes. The Edwards’ deal allegedly came with the condition that he endorsed her bid for President. “He wants to know that there would be a place for him with Barack down the line,” Axelrod quotes an Edwards advisor saying. “I recognized a squeeze play when I saw one, and immediately scrambled up some vague assurances. In the alternate universe in which Clinton secured Edwards’ endorsement, she is soon forced to explain to voters – particularly all those women whom she purported to represent – why her backer, whose support she enthusiastically accepted, had an extramarital affair while his wife was dying of cancer. Not only that, but that he had fathered a child out of wedlock with his mistress and lied about it to the voters. more at the link: They don't care. Slick was having affairs all over and she stood by him.
B-Man Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Hillary for President: an idea whose time has passed? Welcome to Team Hillary vs. Itself, Round 2! (3? 4? I lost track.) Yesterday, operative and scourge-of-the-right-wing David Brock resigned in protest from pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA Action. In his message to the board, he accused his colleagues of orchestrating a “hit job” against his other project organizations, American Bridge and Media Matters. More from Politico: Those groups — along with another pro-Clinton group, the super PAC Ready for Hillary — had their fundraising practices called into question last week by a New York Times report. It pointed out that veteran Democratic fundraiser Mary Pat Bonner got a 12.5 percent commission on funds she raised for Brock’s groups and a smaller percentage commission on cash she raised for Ready for Hillary. In his letter to the co-chairs of Priorities’ board — former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina — Brock alleged that “current and former Priorities officials were behind this specious and malicious attack on the integrity of these critical organizations.” The letter — and Brock’s resignation — offer a rare glimpse into a network of groups upon which Democrats are relying to keep the White House and stave off increasingly robust big-money efforts on the right. The public airing of dirty laundry comes as sources say Priorities is struggling to live up to the hopes of some Clinton allies, who had argued it should aim to raise as much as $500 million to eviscerate prospective Clinton rivals in the primary and general elections. It’s not just the groups that Democrats are relying on to keep the White House—it’s the optics of the thing. Edited February 11, 2015 by B-Man
B-Man Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The Wall Street Journal reported this past week that the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has quietly dropped its ban on foreign contributions and is accepting donations from the governments of “the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany, and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.” The Journal’s conclusion: Since 2001 “the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments.” Needless to say, the gargantuan troll-like conflict of interest that arises as soon as the foundation of the leading candidate for the presidency of the United States begins accepting money from overseas is apparent Why is the Clinton Foundation Accepting Donations from Foreign Governments? According to recent reports, the Clinton Foundation is accepting large donations from foreign governments. Accusations of influence peddling are already being made. James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal: Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency. Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad. The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials. Considering their prior position on this issue, the Democratic Party’s silence is surprising. .
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 As mentioned previously, Hillary has become pretty much everything progressives hate in terms of being the 1%, collecting millions of foreign donations, and pretty much proving herself to be the elitist snob that typically comprises the establishment politicians. Yet they will almost all blindly follow her because, in the end, what are their options? Here is a new ad from Rove's "American Crossroads" which pretty much sums up this line of thinking: Clinton money-grabbing headlines with a Fauxcahontas voice over.
Nanker Posted February 23, 2015 Author Posted February 23, 2015 Well, they can vote for her or do like some libertarians here do when the Rinos nominate the next in line : vote for the other party's nominee in protest. You know, until they get a message to nominate someone they really like and can get behind.
B-Man Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 IT’S GOOD TO BE THE QUEEN: New York Time’s Clinton Reporter on Paid Speeches: ‘It’s Expensive to Be a Clinton.’ “This reflection of the Clinton’s mindset caused panelist Joe Klein to burst into laughter.” The making of Hillary 5.0: Marketing wizards help re-imagine Clinton brand http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-making-of-hillary-50-marketing-wizards-help-reimagine-clinton-brand/2015/02/21/bfb01120-b919-11e4-aa05-1ce812b3fdd2_story.html .
IDBillzFan Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 War On Women! As senator, Hillary paid her female staff 72 cents on the dollar relative to the men on her staff. I guess she can write off the Patricia Arquette vote.
Doc Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 As mentioned previously, Hillary has become pretty much everything progressives hate in terms of being the 1%, collecting millions of foreign donations, and pretty much proving herself to be the elitist snob that typically comprises the establishment politicians. Yet they will almost all blindly follow her because, in the end, what are their options? Here is a new ad from Rove's "American Crossroads" which pretty much sums up this line of thinking: Clinton money-grabbing headlines with a Fauxcahontas voice over. You forgot to mention "voted for the Iraq war." But again, libs don't care if they're hypocrites. War On Women! As senator, Hillary paid her female staff 72 cents on the dollar relative to the men on her staff. I guess she can write off the Patricia Arquette vote. No, Hilly's got Patty's vote. Because, if Hilly did it, there must have been a good reason.
/dev/null Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Well, they can vote for her or do like some libertarians here do when the Rinos nominate the next in line : vote for the other party's nominee in protest. You know, until they get a message to nominate someone they really like and can get behind. Marie Harf. Now there's some body I could get behind
B-Man Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 LOL.............so predictable...................................media response to the article in reply #309 CNN: It’s those darn Republicans that are making the Clinton Foundation’s foreign donations an issue. There those dastardly Republicans go again with their insistence that the Clinton Foundation accepting millions of dollars from foreign governments is some kind of issue for Hillary in 2016. That’s at least according to the spin of a CNN story headlined “GOP seeks to make Clinton Foundation a 2016 headache.” Because apparently this is a non-issue that only Republicans care about. This kind of bias has been a complaint of conservatives for years, when major news outlets report an unfavorable story about Democrats from the lens that Republicans care about it, not that the story itself has any merit. Perhaps CNN reporter Alexandra Jaffe didn’t come up with the title, but the article’s lead suggests that “Clinton’s allies are insisting controversial donations to her eponymous foundation won’t be an issue for her probable presidential bid” and that it’s Republicans who are trying to make the donations an issue. . . . And several Democratic operatives around the country also expressed dismay with the donations. more at the link: .
truth on hold Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) She is probably going to win. Dems have no other logical successor to Obama. And repubes will put up another unelectable a&& clown. Overall there will be momentum to have the first female president after checking the box on the first African American one Edited February 24, 2015 by JTSP
Doc Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 She is probably going to win. Dems have no other logical successor to Obama. And repubes will put up another unelectable a&& clown. Overall there will be momentum to have the first female president after checking the box on the first African American one LOL! Barry's failures only serve to point out that voting for someone because they're "the first..." is dumb. It will be funny to see Dems make hypocrites and vote for an old 1%-er who paid her female staffers less, voted for the Iraq war, hides her money in trusts, and who is now allowing foreign donations.
truth on hold Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 LOL! Barry's failures only serve to point out that voting for someone because they're "the first..." is dumb. It will be funny to see Dems make hypocrites and vote for an old 1%-er who paid her female staffers less, voted for the Iraq war, hides her money in trusts, and who is now allowing foreign donations.Look I wouldnt vote for her at all, on the 2 most important issues ....economy and foreign policy, she fails misersably. And yes the repubes are very much complicit, propping up one out of touch candidate after the other. I really think she's so bad she'll be the first one term president since bush sr, things will be a mess by the end of her 4 years
Deranged Rhino Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Look I wouldnt vote for her at all, on the 2 most important issues ....economy and foreign policy, she fails misersably. And yes the repubes are very much complicit, propping up one out of touch candidate after the other. I really think she's so bad she'll be the first one term president since bush sr, things will be a mess by the end of her 4 years Is there any subject you're capable of speaking intelligently about? Seriously, any subject...
Recommended Posts