More Lies From Hillary

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I actually have some dyed-in-the-wool Democratic friends who now say they believe she’s unelectable.[/quote]

I hope that she neither gains the nomination; and if she does, she doesn’t win the Presidency.

With that said…“The Clinton Machine” should never, EVER be underestimated.

Mufasa[/quote]

That’s generally true in war as well as politics. Never underestimate your opponent. Go at it with passion and a well thought out battle plan. I doubt whomever the republican nominee is that they will underestimate the Clinton machine. Although I will say if that machine was so good it would not have lost to Obama in 08’.

One more point, I feel that “the machine”, in the case of Hillary Clinton, is better than the candidate. And having a great candidate is far more important than whatever machine is driving the candidate.

[/quote]

Yeah, if Bill were running I’d say the Clinton machine is an imposing specter. But Bill was an expert politician, Hillary not so much. She’s a smart lady and I give her credit for that, but she’s no where near the politician that Bill was. Speaking strictly in terms of political prowess, there hasn’t been a better pure politician since Kennedy. I’d say Reagan was a close second, but Bill is a political machine. That is of course putting politics aside and looking at talent alone. Personally, I didn’t care for Bill’s stances but he was a hell of a politician. [/quote]

True, but he was a President who never received even 50% of the vote. Unlike Reagan who won by the biggest electoral landslide in Presidential history. When he spoke he literally moved public opinion. He was a master politician of epic proportions and unequaled in his time.

But, yeah Bill Clinton was pretty good too. And so much better than Hillary that there is literally no comparison. Okay, I just thought of a comparison. Like the New York Yankees compared to a high school baseball team.

Yeah…they are that far apart.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I would also add this, Pat…

Bill LOVES Politics, and specifically the Presidency.

It was in his blood from time as a young boy he shook hands with President Kennedy. Where other people left the Office with great relief…Bill C has stated (and I’m paraphrasing) that he truly missed being President.

Also, Pat…what is it that you don’t like about Jeb? (He seems level headed; appears well versed on most topics…and seems likable…)

Is it the name? The “Rhino” label? Other?

Mufasa[/quote]

You are spot on with that assessment my friend. No one loved being President like Bill Clinton.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
I would also add this, Pat…

Bill LOVES Politics, and specifically the Presidency.

It was in his blood from time as a young boy he shook hands with President Kennedy. Where other people left the Office with great relief…Bill C has stated (and I’m paraphrasing) that he truly missed being President.

Also, Pat…what is it that you don’t like about Jeb? (He seems level headed; appears well versed on most topics…and seems likable…)

Is it the name? The “Rhino” label? Other?

Mufasa[/quote]

It’s just based on stuff he said, kind of his version of ‘values’. Things like the idea that the problem of single motherhood is that we do not as a society ‘shame’ them like in the olden days. I do not believe shaming is a good social tool as a means of controlling people’s behavior. Nor do I believe that those who ended up in a bad situation ought to be shamed for the situation they ended up in.
I certainly believe that the traditional family, I.E. mother and father actively participating in their children’s lives is the best family model, but I do not believe shaming people who aren’t that fortunate is the right attitude by which to approach supporting traditional families. Sure, I get that some people are idiots, some are mean, some are delusional when it comes to single/ non-traditional families. I think the divorce rate is to high. I am not terribly thrilled about gay parenting (meaning 2 daddies or mommies), but I also believe that a non-optimal family setting where there is love and care for children is better than foster parenting or orphanages.
I just don’t believe in shaming people. Maybe some people deserve shaming, but for the sake of those who do not deserve it, it’s better that it not be a standard societal model.
Or this issue of Americans do not work enough hours which I think is quite the opposite. Outside of a small minority of Asian countries we work the most and I do not believe that quantity of hours is necessary. Quality of work, I believe is more important.

If I have to choose between Jeb and Hillary, you better believe I am picking Jeb.

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, if Bill were running I’d say the Clinton machine is an imposing specter. But Bill was an expert politician, Hillary not so much. She’s a smart lady and I give her credit for that, but she’s no where near the politician that Bill was. Speaking strictly in terms of political prowess, there hasn’t been a better pure politician since Kennedy. I’d say Reagan was a close second, but Bill is a political machine. That is of course putting politics aside and looking at talent alone. Personally, I didn’t care for Bill’s stances but he was a hell of a politician. [/quote]

I would put your friend and mine, barry H obummer ahead of slick willy. Atleast willy was a governor and could run on things accomplished. Obummer was some no name “community organizer” who managed to get to the white house. That takes some serious political skill.

With that said, politicians are absolute scum of the earth. I put them somewhere between cock roaches and the white stuff you get in the corner of your mouth when you’re real thirsty (sirus the virus quote)

These people are not leaders, not the best and brightest, and their only real skill is lying and deception in a likable manner.
[/quote]

I disagree. As a politician obama is terrible, one of the worst actually. Sure he can bullshit the public well and got them to vote for him but as far as doing the job, I give him an F-. He cannot work with congress, he cannot work with anybody who disagrees with him. He’d make a fine dictator. He’s a great bullshitter, but he cannot work with people to get things done. It’s his way or the high way, that’s not a good politician. Clinton was able to work with a Republican majority congress. He could play the game and he liked playing the game. Obama hates politics, which is a bad attribute to have if you are the most powerful politician in the country.
I also do not believe, all politicians are dirt by default. It’s an easy position to hold. It’s simple to say they are all assholes and a lot of them are, but I don’t think they all are. It’s a tough job, if you want to really do the work. But it’s got some awesome perks. I suppose that’s the attraction.
Heck, I wouldn’t mind being a president or even a congressman or senator I think it would be fun. I just have no interest in doing what it takes to get there. It’s the campaigning and baby kissing I couldn’t do. I sure as hell could do a better job than obama, but that’s not a high bar. I think dog shit could do a better job.

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]MudFlap wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah, if Bill were running I’d say the Clinton machine is an imposing specter. But Bill was an expert politician, Hillary not so much. She’s a smart lady and I give her credit for that, but she’s no where near the politician that Bill was. Speaking strictly in terms of political prowess, there hasn’t been a better pure politician since Kennedy. I’d say Reagan was a close second, but Bill is a political machine. That is of course putting politics aside and looking at talent alone. Personally, I didn’t care for Bill’s stances but he was a hell of a politician. [/quote]

I would put your friend and mine, barry H obummer ahead of slick willy. Atleast willy was a governor and could run on things accomplished. Obummer was some no name “community organizer” who managed to get to the white house. That takes some serious political skill.

With that said, politicians are absolute scum of the earth. I put them somewhere between cock roaches and the white stuff you get in the corner of your mouth when you’re real thirsty (sirus the virus quote)

These people are not leaders, not the best and brightest, and their only real skill is lying and deception in a likable manner.
[/quote]

QFT

I hear folks call Barry a Failed President.

I don’t think so; I think he has succeeded in much of what he set out to do.

Do I agree with his politics? Pfft… No.
I disagree with most everything he’s done but he’s not a failure.

Remember when he said that he wanted to fundamentally change America?

He might very well have done that in 8 short years.

… and it’s a shame.

mf

[/quote]

I agree, hes even got the supreme court working in his favor to bypass constitutional barriers. What other president has pulled that off?[/quote]

FDR…
Obama didn’t do shit. All he did was nominate the most liberal, awful pieces of shit he could find to fill vacancies. Eventually, somebody has to be approved by congress.

I don’t know if the SCOTUS shouldn’t be elected by a public vote. In the beginning, presidents weren’t elected by popular vote, but that was changed. There are too many layers of separation between the SCOTUS and the people.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I actually have some dyed-in-the-wool Democratic friends who now say they believe she’s unelectable.[/quote]

I hope that she neither gains the nomination; and if she does, she doesn’t win the Presidency.

With that said…“The Clinton Machine” should never, EVER be underestimated.

Mufasa[/quote]

That’s generally true in war as well as politics. Never underestimate your opponent. Go at it with passion and a well thought out battle plan. I doubt whomever the republican nominee is that they will underestimate the Clinton machine. Although I will say if that machine was so good it would not have lost to Obama in 08’.

One more point, I feel that “the machine”, in the case of Hillary Clinton, is better than the candidate. And having a great candidate is far more important than whatever machine is driving the candidate.

[/quote]

Yeah, if Bill were running I’d say the Clinton machine is an imposing specter. But Bill was an expert politician, Hillary not so much. She’s a smart lady and I give her credit for that, but she’s no where near the politician that Bill was. Speaking strictly in terms of political prowess, there hasn’t been a better pure politician since Kennedy. I’d say Reagan was a close second, but Bill is a political machine. That is of course putting politics aside and looking at talent alone. Personally, I didn’t care for Bill’s stances but he was a hell of a politician. [/quote]

True, but he was a President who never received even 50% of the vote. Unlike Reagan who won by the biggest electoral landslide in Presidential history. When he spoke he literally moved public opinion. He was a master politician of epic proportions and unequaled in his time.

But, yeah Bill Clinton was pretty good too. And so much better than Hillary that there is literally no comparison. Okay, I just thought of a comparison. Like the New York Yankees compared to a high school baseball team.

Yeah…they are that far apart.
[/quote]
Yeah, but I am not talking about winning elections, I am talking about actually doing the job.

At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

Here is the link to the story along with the written part of the article. It is well worth going to the page because the video interview with Gowdy that goes with the article has more details.

Representative Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
85%
said Hillary Clinton actually had three subpoenas, two of which were sent before her server was wiped on Wednesday?s ?Hugh Hewitt Show.?

Gowdy was asked, ??I?ve never had a subpoena,? her words. Congressman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
85%
, did Hillary Clinton lie yesterday?? He answered, ?It is a fact that there was a subpoena issued to her in March of 2015. But Congressman, it?s also a fact that there was a subpoena in existence from another Congressional committee far before that one. So there are two subpoenas. There are letters from Congress. And there?s a statutory obligation to her to preserve public records.? And ?There was a, ? think back right after Benghazi, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
80%
wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, in fact, saying Congress has the right and the authority to investigate these attacks. That is tantamount to a ?do not destroy? request. Also keep in mind, Congress wrote her directly when she was Secretary of State and asked her specifically, ?Do you ever use personal email?? She never answered that question. She never said yes, she never said no. All right, fast forward. The Oversight Committee is looking into Benghazi. They issued a subpoena to the State Department to bring certain documents over to Congress so we can inspect them. It is that subpoena that ultimately led the State Department to give us the first eight emails we got from her.? Gowdy then said this subpoena was sent in 2013.

He added, ?There was another one to the State Department. In August of 2013, there were two subpoenas sent to the State Department, which are requests for documents. But as a result of that subpoena to the State Department, the State Department then produced to us her emails. So, there is no way to claim that there was not some legal process directing that those emails be retained and ultimately produced, because they were.? And that ?There were two, [subpeonas] one related to ARB documents, and one related to what we call reading room documents. And they were sent to the Department of State, asking that Congress be delivered these documents. Where that becomes important is, it was as a result of that Oversight subpoena that the Department of State first gave us any of her emails. So, clearly, her emails were covered by that subpoena, or the Department of State never would have given them to us. Now her out is going to be this, or what she thinks is her out, ?Well, the State Department didn?t have my emails, I did.? Which then moves us to the law, the statute, the regulation, which places on her an affirmative duty to protect and preserve public records. So, whether there?s a subpoena in place or not, the law is and has been in place, you have to preserve public record. She decided on her own what was and was not public record. And John, what?s even worse than that, I mean, think when she left office. She left office in February of 2013, right? ? She didn?t delete and wipe clean that server until the fall of 2014, 20 months later, after she left.?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

Pat,

Who exactly on the democratic side would be able to win the nomination and then defeat the republican nominee?

Bernie Saunders?

Who exactly concerns you?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

That is the risk that Kerry and the Obama administration are taking right now by dragging out the release of documents from the State Department. Their best move would be to get this over and done with so they can figure out if she can continue or get her replacement in as soon as possible to build their own support.

Fortunately it is not in the character of the Democrats to deal with problems pro-actively. They will always wait for events to get out ahead of them, then try to reactively perform damage control.

I don’t think it needs to go all the way until she gets the nomination before taking her down can be disastrous for the Democrats. It would do the most damage at that point. But I think that even just prior to it would be very damaging because except for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats really don’t have a credible plan B candidate who is out there building their own base of support.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

That is the risk that Kerry and the Obama administration are taking right now by dragging out the release of documents from the State Department. Their best move would be to get this over and done with so they can figure out if she can continue or get her replacement in as soon as possible to build their own support.

Fortunately it is not in the character of the Democrats to deal with problems pro-actively. They will always wait for events to get out ahead of them, then try to reactively perform damage control.

I don’t think it needs to go all the way until she gets the nomination before taking her down can be disastrous for the Democrats. It would do the most damage at that point. But I think that even just prior to it would be very damaging because except for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats really don’t have a credible plan B candidate who is out there building their own base of support.

[/quote]

Tell me I didn’t just read you calling Bernie Saunders a “credible plan B”.

Should he get the democratic nomination he would go down to defeat by one of the largest margins in Presidential history.

He would probably win Vermont, DC maybe California depending on how far that state has fallen.

[quote]pat wrote:
Sure he can bullshit the public well and got them to vote for him but as far as doing the job[/quote]

THAT IS THE JOB OF A POLITICIAN.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

Pat,

Who exactly on the democratic side would be able to win the nomination and then defeat the republican nominee?

Bernie Saunders?

Who exactly concerns you?
[/quote]

Nobody and that’s my concern. Obama was a nobody who came from nowhere and won. I don’t want the risk of a long shot coming from way in the back to snatch up the nomination. Hillary was a shoe in in 2008, enter obama. I know what we have with Hillary. I don’t want to take the chance of an obama 2. Dance with the devil you know.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

That is the risk that Kerry and the Obama administration are taking right now by dragging out the release of documents from the State Department. Their best move would be to get this over and done with so they can figure out if she can continue or get her replacement in as soon as possible to build their own support.

Fortunately it is not in the character of the Democrats to deal with problems pro-actively. They will always wait for events to get out ahead of them, then try to reactively perform damage control.

I don’t think it needs to go all the way until she gets the nomination before taking her down can be disastrous for the Democrats. It would do the most damage at that point. But I think that even just prior to it would be very damaging because except for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats really don’t have a credible plan B candidate who is out there building their own base of support.

[/quote]

It’s the unknown candidate that I fear. That’s why I want her to have the nomination first. So this feet dragging by obama is a good thing. I don’t fear Bernie Sanders, I fear the community organizer lurking in the shadows.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

That is the risk that Kerry and the Obama administration are taking right now by dragging out the release of documents from the State Department. Their best move would be to get this over and done with so they can figure out if she can continue or get her replacement in as soon as possible to build their own support.

Fortunately it is not in the character of the Democrats to deal with problems pro-actively. They will always wait for events to get out ahead of them, then try to reactively perform damage control.

I don’t think it needs to go all the way until she gets the nomination before taking her down can be disastrous for the Democrats. It would do the most damage at that point. But I think that even just prior to it would be very damaging because except for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats really don’t have a credible plan B candidate who is out there building their own base of support.

[/quote]

Tell me I didn’t just read you calling Bernie Saunders a “credible plan B”.

Should he get the democratic nomination he would go down to defeat by one of the largest margins in Presidential history.

He would probably win Vermont, DC maybe California depending on how far that state has fallen.

[/quote]

I am just saying lets learn the lessons of history in order not to repeat them. It’s easier to beat Hillary than the entire democratic machine.
Americans have short memories. If she hits the gauntlet now, there stands a chance it can be all forgotten by the election. We have time to get Hillary, we just need the patience and discipline to get the timing right.

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Sure he can bullshit the public well and got them to vote for him but as far as doing the job[/quote]

THAT IS THE JOB OF A POLITICIAN.[/quote]

I just do not agree that all politicians are assholes and the system is hopelessly broken. A lot of politicians are assholes, but the system works as designed. And that design was good. It’s not perfect, but no government is. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be better than everybody else’s, which it is.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Sure he can bullshit the public well and got them to vote for him but as far as doing the job[/quote]

THAT IS THE JOB OF A POLITICIAN.[/quote]

I just do not agree that all politicians are assholes and the system is hopelessly broken. A lot of politicians are assholes, but the system works as designed. And that design was good. It’s not perfect, but no government is. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be better than everybody else’s, which it is.[/quote]

True, but being a politician as become a career and not a benevolent service to their country.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

That is the risk that Kerry and the Obama administration are taking right now by dragging out the release of documents from the State Department. Their best move would be to get this over and done with so they can figure out if she can continue or get her replacement in as soon as possible to build their own support.

Fortunately it is not in the character of the Democrats to deal with problems pro-actively. They will always wait for events to get out ahead of them, then try to reactively perform damage control.

I don’t think it needs to go all the way until she gets the nomination before taking her down can be disastrous for the Democrats. It would do the most damage at that point. But I think that even just prior to it would be very damaging because except for Bernie Sanders, the Democrats really don’t have a credible plan B candidate who is out there building their own base of support.

[/quote]

Tell me I didn’t just read you calling Bernie Saunders a “credible plan B”.

Should he get the democratic nomination he would go down to defeat by one of the largest margins in Presidential history.

He would probably win Vermont, DC maybe California depending on how far that state has fallen.

[/quote]
I don’t think an avowed socialist has an ice cube’s chance in hell in this country. Certainly not after Obama. I think his ideas on policy are divorced from reality. But that doesn’t change the fact that Bernie is the only Democrat who is seriously trying to beat Hillary. If Hillary goes down he is the next in line. The Democrat bench is that shallow.

Who else is going to run? Biden and Kerry are the highest profile possibles but both have serious baggage from their time in the Obama administration. Look at how Kerry’s state department has been stonewalling the turnover of documents to the Benghazi committee or the bad nuclear deal he is begging for from Iran. How is he going to defend that record?

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
At this point Hillary is so deep into her lies I can’t wait to see her finally go before the Benghazi committee and testify under oath about her email server. A couple of days ago Trey Gowdy gave an interview in response to her claim that she was never served a subpoena for her emails. She is going to have to completely contradict what she has been telling everyone or get charged with perjury like her husband. Hopefully she is going to end up facing criminal charges for spoliation of evidence.

[/quote]

I agree, but I can wait for the hammer to drop. Let’s make sure she has secured the nomination first. Then everybody can out her as much as they want.
I don’t want to end up with another asshole like obama. I’d MUCH rather have President Hillary than obama. No 2008 repeats please.[/quote]

Pat,

Who exactly on the democratic side would be able to win the nomination and then defeat the republican nominee?

Bernie Saunders?

Who exactly concerns you?
[/quote]

Nobody and that’s my concern. Obama was a nobody who came from nowhere and won. I don’t want the risk of a long shot coming from way in the back to snatch up the nomination. Hillary was a shoe in in 2008, enter obama. I know what we have with Hillary. I don’t want to take the chance of an obama 2. Dance with the devil you know. [/quote]

The novelty of he would be the first black president did a lot to help Obama, both with the voters and a fawning press that failed to properly vet him. His campaign also had a much better handle on the use of new information technologies that were only just getting started when Billy boy was president. Hillary was very much stuck in the past and didn’t have the ability to think on her feet.

The last six years has seen a big expansion of conservative news sites on the web. If back in 2008 Glenn Beck’s Theblaze.com or Breitbart.com had been as established as they are today Obama’s association with Bill Ayers and other radicals would have got much coverage than it did.

As for better the devil you know, I know more than enough about Hillary to absolutely not want to see her become president. I would much sooner see Bernie Sanders than her. The reason why is because Bernie comes across as a lot more honest and principled. I don’t agree with his ideas but he does what Reagan did. He says this is what I believe in take it or leave it.

With Hillary it sounds like she is saying whatever this weeks focus group told her would be a vote getter, but she has no base values or convictions that would lead her to follow through on any of it.

Sanders has no chance, and never did. His role is to impact the narrative to try and pull (perceived as corporatist) Hillary to the left by forcing her to address the kinds of issues Sanders thinks important.

Problem is, Hillary has flopped out of the gate, and Sanders finds himself with a bigger voice than expected. So, why not keep talking?

But he has no shot at the Presidency.