B-Man Posted November 16, 2015 Author Posted November 16, 2015 None of the Democrats running for President has a strategy for ISIS: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis … Not true. Their strategy is to snipe at Republicans who are offering strategies
DC Tom Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 None of the Democrats running for President has a strategy for ISIS: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/none-of-the-democrats-has-a-strategy-for-isis … In their defense, the Democrat currently President doesn't have a strategy either.
B-Man Posted November 16, 2015 Author Posted November 16, 2015 In their defense, the Democrat currently President doesn't have a strategy either. True sir,....................and "he's not changing it".. LOL (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released more than 35 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin revealing that Abedin advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former Secretary of State was “often confused.” The emails, from Abedin’s “Huma@clintonemail.com” address, also reveal repeated security breaches, with the Secretary’s schedule and movements being sent and received through Abedin’s non-governmental and unsecured Clinton server account • Abedin: Have you been going over her calls with her? So she knows singh is at 8? [india Prime Minister Manmohan Singh] • Hanley: She was in bed for a nap by the time I heard that she had an 8am call. Will go over with her • Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused. Ladies and Gents............our next President. http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-email-reveals-top-aide-huma-abedin-warning-state-department-staffer-that-hillary-clinton-is-often-confused/
IDBillzFan Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 In their defense, the Democrat currently President doesn't have a strategy either. He does have a strategy: to stop terror, you must stop global warming cooling climate change. He rejected the Keystone pipeline. What more do you want? • Abedin: Very imp to do that. She’s often confused. And this is the best the left has got. They talk about Reagan at the end of his presidency, and she's brain dead before she even gets elected.
keepthefaith Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 He does have a strategy: to stop terror, you must stop global warming cooling climate change. He rejected the Keystone pipeline. What more do you want? And this is the best the left has got. They talk about Reagan at the end of his presidency, and she's brain dead before she even gets elected.
B-Man Posted November 18, 2015 Author Posted November 18, 2015 Democrat politics........... Washington Post WHAT COULD GO WRONG? Democrats put their fate in Obama’s hands — and the Islamic State’s. “Are Democrats going to circle the wagons once again for the White House, just as they did on the deeply flawed Iran deal? If so, they are gambling with the lives of Americans and with their own political future. Essentially, they are betting that the Islamic State won’t follow up on Paris, even though the president projects passivity and weakness — even defiance to suggestions that his approach has not made us safer. While the president may be so cut off from reality that he does not appreciate the enormity of his national security failure or the impression of weakness and unseriousness he is projecting, Democratic elected officials and candidates have no excuse.” Well, when you’re reading in The New Yorker — The New Yorker! — that none of the Democrats has a strategy for ISIS, things look bad. .
B-Man Posted November 19, 2015 Author Posted November 19, 2015 Congressional Democrats Getting Richer Despite Income Inequality Agenda http://goo.gl/2FXbD2 You spelled "because of" wrong
B-Man Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) HIDING HILLARY: ANOTHER WEEKEND DEBATE! By Frank Bruni New York Times The Republican presidential candidates have demonstrated such an appetite for debates that if I set up nine lecterns in my living room on a weeknight around 8 p.m. and chanted “carpet bomb” and “anchor baby,” they’d probably materialize en masse, even before I had time to vacuum and put out the artichoke dip. But I could send save-the-date cards, promise canapés by Mario Batali and recruit Adele to belt out “Hello” whenever the doorbell rang: Still the Democrats wouldn’t show up. For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet. Tuesday night’s meeting of Republicans was the fifth. The meeting of Democratic presidential candidates in a few days will be only the third. And who’s going to watch it? It’s on a Saturday night, when a political debate ranks somewhere between dialysis and a Milli Vanilli tribute concert as a desirable way to unwind. The previous meeting of the Democratic candidates was also on a Saturday night, and fewer than 9 million viewers tuned in, down from 15.3 million for the sole Democratic debate so far on a weeknight. All of the Republican debates have been on weeknights; the first two attracted more than 23 million viewers each. When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things. Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over. But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can? I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. What I’ve heard instead is the concern that if Clinton indeed gets the nomination, she'll enter the general election less battle-tested When the Democratic debates were set up, party leaders assumed that Hillary Clinton would be their best candidate, put their chips on her and sought to make sure that some upstart didn’t upset their plans or complicate things. Bernie Sanders complained. Martin O'Malley cried foul. So did a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Tulsi Gabbard. It was an ugly sideshow for a few days, then it blew over. But we shouldn’t be so quick to forgive and forget how the Democratic Party behaved. It prides itself on being the true champion of democracy. Shouldn’t it want its candidates on vivid, continuous display? Shouldn’t it connect them with the largest audience that it can? I’m surprised that I haven’t heard more griping about this. I'm not Edited December 17, 2015 by B-Man
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 If Hillary was the best you could muster she should be hidden as much as possible. She belongs in jail more than the oval office.
Chef Jim Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 I just notice this got bumped up. Are the Dems having debates??
B-Man Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 I just notice this got bumped up. Are the Dems having debates?? Yes. This Saturday at 8pm.......................prime political viewership time. of course the term debate is (especially) laughable in this case.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Yes. This Saturday at 8pm.......................prime political viewership time. of course the term debate is (especially) laughable in this case. I think coronation is the correct term.
IDBillzFan Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 It will be interesting to see how the party of birddog really shows how different it is from the Republicans when they start talking about how unique their individual positions are on a given subject.
Bob in Mich Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 I think coronation is the correct term. Apologies if it was not you, but I have read several times about the Dems putting up such a weak field while the Repubs have put up such a strong field. You know the candidates, at this point, are putting up themselves. They are looking at their money generation possibilities and making personal decisions whether to run or not. There are so few Dems because to Dems anyway, Hillary looks very tough to beat. To contrast, lots of Repub candidates think they can win. Why do they think that? Imo, because there are a lot of weak candidates on the Repub side and no one nearly as likely to win the party nomination as Hillary.
B-Man Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Martin O’Malley and Bernie Sanders Bristle at Holding Debates on Weekends If a presidential debate is held and nobody watches, does it really happen? While viewers are expected to watch the third Democratic debate on Saturday night, they are unlikely to be doing so in the droves that tuned into the Republican debates or the Democratic face-off that was held on a weeknight. While some of that interest on the Republican side can be attributed to the Donald J. Trump effect, critics of the Democratic National Committee’s scheduling process are also upset that the party is muting its message by holding debates when people are less likely to tune in. What if Democrats had a national security debate? Washington Examiner, by Byron York Original Article The Democratic presidential field, such as it is, gathers for its third debate Saturday, in Manchester, N.H. Here´s a thought experiment: Imagine it were devoted entirely to national security. Edited December 18, 2015 by B-Man
truth on hold Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) As embarrassed as Republicans should be about a number of the candidates on stage, Democrats should be equally (if not more) embarrassed by the lack of a serious challenger to Hillary. Is that really the best they can do? If so... Edited December 18, 2015 by JTSP
Nanker Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Moderator 1: "Mrs. Clinton - may we call you Hillary - what's your favorite color?" Moderator 2: "Hillary, I adore your new hairdo and earrings. Don't you think like I do that Republican women look like hags?" Moderator 3: "Mr. Sanders, are you related to Colonel Sanders, and what are you planning to do about his inhumane treatment of chickens?" Moderator 4: "Mr. O'Malley, if you were a serious candidate, I'd pose a question to you, but since you're not, I won't. Mrs. Clinton, what are your views on white Christian extremists and the threat they pose to national security?" Moderator 1: "Mrs. Clinton you were the most successful Secretary of State. Weren't you in charge of having the Einstein statue erected at the mall side bordering the DOS building?" Moderator 2: "Hillary, what a stunning outfit you've chosen to wear tonight. Does Bill assist you with choosing your wardrobe?" Moderator 3: "Mr. Sanders, what have you done to stop climate change and why is ISIL no longer called ISIS?" Moderator 4: "Mrs. Clinton, you seem annoyed at the other potential candidates here on stage with you tonight. Should we leave them off the next debate?"
B-Man Posted December 18, 2015 Author Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Sanders: Clinton's pursuit of 'regime change' in Libya helped rise of Isis by Dan Roberts Bernie Sanders has accused Hillary Clinton of encouraging Islamic extremism in Libya, in a prelude to a Democratic debate on Saturday during which he is expected to go on the attack for the first time over the unintended consequences of the former secretary of state’s more interventionist foreign policy. Speaking to the Guardian in an extensive pre-debate interview, the senator from Vermont criticised Clinton for carelessly fomenting regime change in Libya “without worrying” about the ensuing instability that has helped Islamic State forces take hold in the country. CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk 6m6 minutes ago Bernie Sanders' campaign manager threatens to take DNC to court if access to voter database remains blocked. http://cnn.it/1QtBbJ3 Edited December 18, 2015 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 CNN Breaking News @cnnbrk 6m6 minutes ago Bernie Sanders' campaign manager threatens to take DNC to court if access to voter database remains blocked. http://cnn.it/1QtBbJ3 But the Republican party, that's a clown car... I mean, good for Sanders. Watching the DNC act as Clinton's royal entourage is nauseating, and I wholeheartedly support his fighting against that, both in principle and as part of my ABC belief. But hell...a candidate suing his own party for his right to his own data?
GG Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 But hell...a candidate suing his own party for his right to his own data? But at this point, what difference does it make?
Recommended Posts