Hillary Clinton

[magwell]

Chances of her becoming the President ?

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Hillary is currently even money or 11 to 10 offshore. This is down significantly from the holidays when she was -230 or better.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

Personally, I think her chances are less than 10%, based on the economy unraveling within the year, and of course the hard sale of getting past her lying, bitchiness, and penchant for failure.

She's the Clinton without the charisma....

<DISCLAIMER> I am not a professional poltical predictor, nor do I play one on TV.....all opinions expressed herein are not to be considered financial advice, and any losses incurred are not the liability of the poster. As with any financial transaction (especially horse racing), there is a potential for loss. Please read the prospectus carefully. </DISCLAIMER>

[Robert Goren]

She at this point about 2/5 because the GOP is unlikely to nominate anyone who can beat her. Thinking that somebody like Cruz or Rubio or Walker or Carlson can beat her is just wishful thinking on the part of conservatives. At some point, the GOP has got to sit down and add up the votes of the various possible nominees against her. Something at this point they are unwilling to do. They are having too much fun bashing her. All that is doing is strengthening the resolve of her hard core supporters.
Today Christie gets into the race. It will be interesting to see how he does. He is one of the few republicans that have an outside chance of beating her. And I do see a path for him to get the nomination, but it requires a good deal of luck, a strong showing in New Hampshire and Jeb Bush falling flat on his face. Christie's time may have already come and gone. 2012 was his year. I think he had a good shot(50/50) at beating Obama then. A better shot than he has of beating Hillary. I give him about 35-40% chance of beating Hillary if he can get the nomination.

[MutuelClerk]

I cringe at any of these possibilities.

[upthecreek]

Truer words never spoken

[elysiantraveller]

She at this point about 2/5 because the GOP is unlikely to nominate anyone who can beat her. Thinking that somebody like Cruz or Rubio or Walker or Carlson can beat her is just wishful thinking on the part of conservatives. At some point, the GOP has got to sit down and add up the votes of the various possible nominees against her. Something at this point they are unwilling to do. They are having too much fun bashing her. All that is doing is strengthening the resolve of her hard core supporters.
Today Christie gets into the race. It will be interesting to see how he does. He is one of the few republicans that have an outside chance of beating her. And I do see a path for him to get the nomination, but it requires a good deal of luck, a strong showing in New Hampshire and Jeb Bush falling flat on his face. Christie's time may have already come and gone. 2012 was his year. I think he had a good shot(50/50) at beating Obama then. A better shot than he has of beating Hillary. I give him about 35-40% chance of beating Hillary if he can get the nomination.

I give Jeb and Rubio a shot at beating her. I don't see how Christie survives the primaries but I can see a slim but frightenly real chance of Santorum coming out with the nomination. My dream, however, is a Paul / Sanders general election. No matter who wins the country at least gets a long overdue injection of new ideology.

[Saratoga_Mike]

She at this point about 2/5 because the GOP is unlikely to nominate anyone who can beat her. Thinking that somebody like Cruz or Rubio or Walker or Carlson can beat her is just wishful thinking on the part of conservatives. At some point, the GOP has got to sit down and add up the votes of the various possible nominees against her. Something at this point they are unwilling to do. They are having too much fun bashing her. All that is doing is strengthening the resolve of her hard core supporters.
.

Ted Cruz isn't going to be the nominee, so stop dreaming.

Yeah, Rubio isn't a threat...that's why her camp is most worried about him.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I give Jeb and Rubio a shot at beating her. I don't see how Christie survives the primaries but I can see a slim but frightenly real chance of Santorum coming out with the nomination. My dream, however, is a Paul / Sanders general election. No matter who wins the country at least gets a long overdue injection of new ideology.

Santorum is a good debater, but he won't be the nominee. Chris Christie? He's in the race? What a waste of time. Does he even have supporters anymore?

[elysiantraveller]

Santorum is a good debater, but he won't be the nominee. Chris Christie? He's in the race? What a waste of time. Does he even have supporters anymore?

Agreed he has been damaged goods with Republicans since Sandy. Should have waited another 4 or 8 if at all.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's so freakin' ridiculous that something like the Obama hug after Sandy or that even more ridiculous lane closure scandal supposedly negates Christie's chances.

Tell me why either of those two things means something beyond fodder for the press and internet chat rooms?

Saratoga Mike has been up Christie's giant ass (less giant now) since the beginning of time...so he should be the first to respond.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's so freakin' ridiculous that something like the Obama hug after Sandy or that even more ridiculous lane closure scandal supposedly negates Christie's chances.

Tell me why either of those two things means something beyond fodder for the press and internet chat rooms?

Saratoga Mike has been up Christie's giant ass (less giant now) since the beginning of time...so he should be the first to respond.

Thanks for the recognition - I've been right about CC for a long time. I admit when I'm wrong - I said NY would never elect Hillary as their Senator in 2000 (idiotic call).

It wasn't Sandy and it wasn't the lane closure. He never had a shot.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why?

1) He isn't presidential. Why would I make such a claim given the bar has been set so low in recent times? There's a certain innate coarseness to him, which serves him well as governor but isn't compatible with what voters want in a president.

2) There's no path to the White House for him. Support in Iowa? No way. Support in NH? A smidge. South Carolina? None. Florida? Yes, some. What does that look like? Right, Rudy's path to the WH (i.e., all-in on Florida).

3) Donors fleeing. Jeb entering the race was not a good thing for CC.

4) Lots of baggage - Romney people vetted him and said "no way" (Halpern).

5) At this point, he wouldn't even carry his own state against Hillary.

[JustRalph]

Why?

2nd amendment problems for one thing

[elysiantraveller]

It's so freakin' ridiculous that something like the Obama hug after Sandy or that even more ridiculous lane closure scandal supposedly negates Christie's chances.

Ridiculous? Of course it is but it is the GOP we are talking about.

[lamboguy]

Chances of her becoming the President ?the line on the 2016 presidential election is now off the boards at thegreek.com. the democrats were -$185.

i always quote this place because they are taking $50k on one number on united states elections.

[magwell]

the line on the 2016 presidential election is now off the boards at thegreek.com. the democrats were -$185.

i always quote this place because they are taking $50k on one number on united states elections.Thanks it seems to me they have the wrong favorite, but I've been wrong a lot lately .....:D

[_______]

1) He isn't presidential. Why would I make such a claim given the bar has been set so low in recent times? There's a certain innate coarseness to him, which serves him well as governor but isn't compatible with what voters want in a president.

2) There's no path to the White House for him. Support in Iowa? No way. Support in NH? A smidge. South Carolina? None. Florida? Yes, some. What does that look like? Right, Rudy's path to the WH (i.e., all-in on Florida).

3) Donors fleeing. Jeb entering the race was not a good thing for CC.

4) Lots of baggage - Romney people vetted him and said "no way" (Halpern).

5) At this point, he wouldn't even carry his own state against Hillary.

Good analysis. I would just add that anyone not named Bush or Rubio depending on a win in Florida is up against it.

[lamboguy]

Thanks it seems to me they have the wrong favorite, but I've been wrong a lot lately .....:D
according to most on the last election they had the wrong favorite as well, yet when they counted the votes the favorite got the money.

i find election odds more reliable than pollster's.

[badcompany]

I put Hillary's odds at 1-2.

[_______]

Bovada has DEM -165, REP +135

[badcompany]

There's a saying that there's really only two campaign slogans:

1. It's time for a change.

2. You've never had it so good.

We're not at war, and, while the economy isn't great, it's not that bad. With that said, I'd bet on "2."

[magwell]

I put Hillary's odds at 1-2.If she wins I'll have to quit politics .....again :lol:

[JustRalph]

She starts with 48% of the vote. It's not a huge leap.

A repub winning is almost an impossibility

[Clocker]

She starts with 48% of the vote. It's not a huge leap.



That's assuming the Dem base turns out. They didn't in 2014, and the GOP took the Congress.

[JustRalph]

She has the press. Here's a sample of an email on her private server. Note the expressed relationship with a press member

[JustRalph]

Try this one too

[JustRalph]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=91&v=3L5hn5B8TYI

Candidates Cribs!

3L5hn5B8TYI

[davew]

sportsbook has Hillary at +110
and Democrat at -160


which seems strange as the next Dems listed are
Bernie Sanders +3000
Elizabeth Warren +6000
Joe Biden +7500
Al Gore +10000

[Tom]

I think by the tie enough of her illegal emails get released, enough level-headed democrats (oxymoron?) will be disgusted enough by her to ether not vote or look at repubs. That 48% will fall, IMHO, to under 40.

When reasonable people look at her records, they will have to realize that this is not an honest of good person.

[Greyfox]

Hillary's mishandling of the Benghazi tragedy, before, during, and after it happened should sour anyone on the idea of her becoming President.

Unfortunately, the general public as a whole have short memories and the significance of the Benghazi fiasco has been downplayed.

[Clocker]

From an article titled "Hillary Gump" by Victor David Hanson.

The fictional and cinema hero Forrest Gump somehow always managed to turn up at historic moments in the latter twentieth century. But whereas Forrest usually had a positive role to play at the hinges of fate, the equally ubiquitous Hillary Gump usually appeared as a bit player who made things far worse.

Take the issue of government abuse, ethics, and public transparency. The modern locus classicus of government overreach was the Watergate scandal. Over forty years ago Hillary was there as a young legal intern purportedly advising the House Judiciary Committee during the congressional investigations. She was also reportedly let go by her superiors for unethical conduct — quis custodiet ipsos custodes? From Watergate to Travelgate to Filegate to Whitewater to the current quid pro quos of the Clinton Foundation to her recent destruction of private emails and her private server while serving as secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has been at or near lots of government scandals of the last half-century. Twenty years ago Hillary Clinton was brazenly evading federal law by hiding her legal records from a court-ordered subpoena for documents — in the same fashion that in 2015 she destroyed all traces of her email correspondence on her private server, in violation of State Department protocol and most likely federal law.



Full story here:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/

[JustRalph]

Manipulating the media and she can't use a fax....... :lol:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/01/hillary-e-mails-show-manipulation-of-mainstream-media-says-mother-jones/

[Clocker]

Manipulating the media and she can't use a fax....... :lol:

She has people for that. And to wait on her every need and whim. One of the released emails:

“Pls call Sarah and ask her if she can make me some iced tea,” 30 September 2009

[badcompany]

I think by the tie enough of her illegal emails get released, enough level-headed democrats (oxymoron?) will be disgusted enough by her to ether not vote or look at repubs. That 48% will fall, IMHO, to under 40.

When reasonable people look at her records, they will have to realize that this is not an honest of good person.

Unless she has a health issue or somehow gets indicted, she's gonna be the Dem candidate.

If so, the question becomes whether or not one of the 14 and counting prospective Repub candidates can beat her in the general election.

Looking at this OBJECTIVELY, as a Horserace, my money would go on Hillary.

[magwell]

Unless she has a health issue or somehow gets indicted, she's gonna be the Dem candidate.

If so, the question becomes whether or not one of the 14 and counting prospective Repub candidates can beat her in the general election.

Looking at this OBJECTIVELY, as a Horserace, my money would go on Hillary.You explain your opinions on the market in detail with good facts, now can you explain how you make Hillary 1-2 in the same way with facts ?

[elysiantraveller]

You explain your opinions on the market in detail with good facts, now can you explain how you make Hillary 1-2 in the same way with facts ?

1) Money

2) Momentum

3) Experience

4) Name recognition

5) Gender

6) Doesn't have a greyhound bus full of challengers to twist her platform into a twizzler.

[badcompany]

You explain your opinions on the market in detail with good facts, now can you explain how you make Hillary 1-2 in the same way with facts ?

It's an opinion that none of the Republican candidates can beat Hillary in a general election under current conditions.

The younger Republicans lack Hillary's name recognition, Star Power, and are untested on a national stage. The older Candidate, and current front runner, Jeb Bush, excites no one.

The oddsmakers seem to agree with me.

[ArlJim78]

I fully expect granny's max headroom campaign to implode. She is waaay overrated. She'll never become president.

[Greyfox]

She'll never become president.

Unfortunately, she likely will.

[magwell]

It's an opinion that none of the Republican candidates can beat Hillary in a general election under current conditions.

The younger Republicans lack Hillary's name recognition, Star Power, and are untested on a national stage. The older Candidate, and current front runner, Jeb Bush, excites no one.

The oddsmakers seem to agree with me.Partner, to make her 1-2 you can come up with more this , no disrespect but this explanation is weak at best......

[badcompany]

Partner, to make her 1-2 you can come up with more this , no disrespect but this explanation is weak at best......

So, who do you think will win?

Someone is gonna be President in 2016. It's not gonna be Obama. Hillary is 1/9 to get the Dem nomination. So, obviously you think a Repub can get it done. Cruz? Rubio? Bush? Gindal? Walker? Trump? Christie? Which one of them would be favored against Hillary?

I saw this same thing here in 2008. Guys here need to put away the Pom poms and put on a referee's shirt.

[davew]

I think by the tie enough of her illegal emails get released, enough level-headed democrats (oxymoron?) will be disgusted enough by her to ether not vote or look at repubs. That 48% will fall, IMHO, to under 40.

When reasonable people look at her records, they will have to realize that this is not an honest of good person.


democrats don't care what kind of crook they follow, as long as they get more entitlements

the independents will be more likely to switch

[johnhannibalsmith]

She's 1-2 because the country is 2-5 to not elect a Republican least of all the same ole same ole mishmash and because nobody actually likes Hillary you get a little value.

[badcompany]

democrats don't care what kind of crook they follow, as long as they get more entitlements

the independents will be more likely to switch

Exactly, Hillary could've been banging those two escaped prisoner's for the Dems care.

[Tom]

I have more faith in the country than that. They will never elect such a lying low-life who has accomplished nothing in any elected office as her.

Like they did Obama.

[reckless]

I fully expect granny's max headroom campaign to implode. She is waaay overrated. She'll never become president.

Personally, I would love for Hillary!, the Queen of Corruption, to be the Democrat nominee.

The GOP has nothing to fear about her candidacy.

If she couldn't defeat a no-name, unknown, stupid candidate in Obama in the 2008 presidential race when the red carpet was rolled out for her coronation, how could she expect to get nominated this time around?

I agree with ArlJim about her implosion. This will pave the way for the only two candidates that could win for the Democrats in 2016: Jim Webb and Al Gore. I mentioned this possibility earlier and I still stand by this prediction.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

sportsbook has Hillary at +110
and Democrat at -160


which seems strange as the next Dems listed are
Bernie Sanders +3000
Elizabeth Warren +6000
Joe Biden +7500
Al Gore +10000

It's early. The bookmakers are anticipating another shooting star to come out of left field and take down the old bat.

[Clocker]

I agree with ArlJim about her implosion. This will pave the way for the only two candidates that could win for the Democrats in 2016: Jim Webb and Al Gore. I mentioned this possibility earlier and I still stand by this prediction.

Sanders is getting more press and bigger crowds than Hillary. And there is more and more in the mainstream media about Biden as the anti-Hillary. Lots of speculation about him announcing, possibly next month.

From the Washington Post:
In a lot of ways, Biden would be the true anti-Hillary. He is completely uninhibited, he is impossible to script — which makes him seem authentic — and he has a human appeal that everyone can relate to. Clinton, on the other hand, is running a surreal campaign that avoids crowds, media and spontaneity of any kind. She is protecting her lead in the most standard, unimaginative way possible. Compared with Clinton’s robotic, stiff approach, could having a reputation for occasionally saying the wrong thing and hugging too much work to Biden’s advantage in an era where voters want the real thing?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/30/the-insiders-has-joe-bidens-moment-arrived/

From the Washington Times:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s team is putting out the word that he is leaning in favor of joining the presidential race next month, according to a prominent Democratic fundraiser.

The veep’s entrance would dramatically shake up the Democratic contest, confronting front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton with a formidable opponent who is equally well-known across the country and poised to tap a network of major donors.

“They have given increasingly strong signals that Biden is going to throw his hat in the ring,” said New York businessman Jon Cooper, a top bundler for President Obama’s 2012 campaign who has been testing the waters with fellow bundlers for a Biden run.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/1/joe-biden-likely-to-join-2016-white-house-race-nex/#ixzz3ekky5c6f

[Greyfox]

Joke of the Month?

The Washington Times referred to Joe Biden as a formidable opponent! :lol::lol::lol:

[Tom]

I would actually vote for Joe over many of the RINOs out there today.

[Greyfox]

I would actually vote for Joe over many of the RINOs out there today.

Second Nominee for Joke of the Month

Insert cartoon of Tom voting for Joe Biden here.

[Tom]

Ha Ha!

[elysiantraveller]

Joke of the Month?

The Washington Times referred to Joe Biden as a formidable opponent! :lol::lol::lol:

Joe Biden is an extremely formidable opponent. To think he isn't is crazy he has donors, experience, his off-the-cuff remarks make him endearing, and hell, he can take credit for getting the only accomplishment this administration has done.

That article actually seemed very spot-on.

[jk3521]

Joe Biden is an extremely formidable opponent. To think he isn't is crazy he has donors, experience, his off-the-cuff remarks make him endearing, and hell, he can take credit for getting the only accomplishment this administration has done.

That article actually seemed very spot-on.
http://www.buttonsonline.com/2016/joe-biden-2016-buttons.html

[dartman51]

Personally, I would love for Hillary!, the Queen of Corruption, to be the Democrat nominee.

The GOP has nothing to fear about her candidacy.

If she couldn't defeat a no-name, unknown, stupid candidate in Obama in the 2008 presidential race when the red carpet was rolled out for her coronation, how could she expect to get nominated this time around?

I agree with ArlJim about her implosion. This will pave the way for the only two candidates that could win for the Democrats in 2016: Jim Webb and Al Gore. I mentioned this possibility earlier and I still stand by this prediction.


Jim Webb has announced he is running.

[reckless]

Jim Webb has announced he is running.

Thanks for telling us, dartman, I didn't know it was official yet.

I truly believe he'll be tough for the GOP to beat because he isn't your typical left wing anti-American inarticulate Democrat.

Plus, since the Obama/Hillary foreign policy is a disaster and dangerous a strong military type guy will be welcomed. It's the main reason I believe that Rick Perry will be considered a serious candidate too.

Border security, illegal immigration and the failed Obama economy are the three main issues in the 2016 campaign.

There's no room for a serial failure like Hillary! to be a factor in this coming election. It is just a matter of time.

[zico20]

Read in the local paper today that Hillary raised 45 million since mid-April. That is a ton of money in a short period of time. She will definitely have the resources. She has placed organizers in all 50 states plus the US territories already. If she is the nominee, she could rake in more than Obama did.

[Tom]

A lot of that money came to her illegally for overseas, from enemies of freedom. That is what Hillary is, an un-American enemy of freedom.
As well a flat out liar.

I am really amazed some cannot see that and support her.
There a lot more than 3 libs out there.

[Clocker]

A lot of that money came to her illegally for overseas, from enemies of freedom. That is what Hillary is, an un-American enemy of freedom.
As well a flat out liar.

No way to tell. A few big super PACs, with the help of George Soros, have kicked in about $24 million so far this year.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/soros-helps-pro-clinton-super-pacs-to-20-million-haul-119669.html

[Tom]

Funny how many simpletons were all in a uproar over Romney having money, but Hillary gets a pass.

Simple minds are the DNC's playground.

[Clocker]

Funny how many simpletons were all in a uproar over Romney having money, but Hillary gets a pass.


Yes, but she and Bill were dead broke after years of selfless service to the country, and she had to put herself out on the street at $300K a pop just to pay the mortgages on the mansions. :rolleyes:

[davew]

no one seems to mind how much money Biden has -

it is interesting how all these politicians get rich from 'other things' while they have their full time job politicking...

[magwell]

no one seems to mind how much money Biden has -

it is interesting how all these politicians get rich from 'other things' while they have their full time job politicking... :lol::lol: :ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Clocker]

no one seems to mind how much money Biden has -

it is interesting how all these politicians get rich from 'other things' while they have their full time job politicking...

Biden's financial disclosure filing as VP shows a negative net worth. The money owed on the mortgages of the two homes he and his wife own exceeds their equity in the homes. Biden does OK on his $230K salary as VP plus whatever his wife makes, but he ain't living the live of the rich and famous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/23/no-joe-biden-isnt-hillary-clinton-wealthy/

[Tom]

Goren can't possible support Hillary.
We all know that when Bill was president, the separation between Church and state was violated.

Bill kept more than one kneeler in the Oval Office.

[magwell]

Does anybody want Hillary and please tell why ?

[Robert Fischer]

Does anybody want Hillary and please tell why ?

"America is moving forward, and Hillary is an amazing symbol of our progress as the first woman president... "



or something like that? That's what I'd guess. Similar to the Obama stuff?

[Greyfox]

Maybe the Republicans should convince Condoleeza Rice to run against her and establish two firsts?

[jk3521]

If Hillary becomes our next POTUS, what's next ? . First gay president ? :eek:

[tucker6]

If Hillary becomes our next POTUS, what's next ? . First gay president ? :eek:
Janet Reno for president?? A two-fer if there ever was one. Hell, she could run as a man too and corner all the votes.

[NJ Stinks]

Does anybody want Hillary and please tell why ?

For me it's mainly because I have trouble identifying anything at all that I agree with the GOP on. Maybe some other liberals here could enlighten me about an issue that the GOP has right and the Dems wrong. :confused:

[Greyfox]

Maybe some other liberals here could enlighten me about an issue that the GOP has right and the Dems wrong. :confused:

Sorry for intruding as an Independent thinker here NJ Stinks.

Both G.W. Bush and B.H. Obama have been in a fog with respect to the National Debt that is rising by the second.

Whether or not that is an issue that GOP has right and the Dems have wrong, is something that both sides have to claim blame for.

Down the road, some American President of either stripe, and the American populace, will have to face it head on.

A sad legacy left by two of the most incompetent Presidents in the history of the United States - and in consecutive terns for both.

[Clocker]

Down the road, some American President of either stripe, and the American populace, will have to face it head on.



Or the Germans will after we join the EU and become the next Greece.

[davew]

If Hillary becomes our next POTUS, what's next ? . First gay president ? :eek:

0bamas wife as first transgender

[reckless]

If Hillary becomes our next POTUS, what's next ? First gay president ? :eek:

Some people in the know say you'll get both if Hillary! is elected president.

[delayjf]

For me it's mainly because I have trouble identifying anything at all that I agree with the GOP on. Maybe some other liberals here could enlighten me about an issue that the GOP has right and the Dems wrong

Fine, your liberal and that's you point of view - but couldn't you get anyone else but Hillary to be that symbol of progression. I would gladly take Elizabeth Warren over Hillary any day.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Fine, your liberal and that's you point of view - but couldn't you get anyone else but Hillary to be that symbol of progression. I would gladly take Elizabeth Warren over Hillary any day.

If one has to be president, I'd take Hillary...painful choice, though.

[magwell]

If one has to be president, I'd take Hillary...painful choice, though.Painful is a understatement, just the thought of listening to her talk for 4 years is frightening.........;)

[johnhannibalsmith]

Painful is a understatement, just the thought of listening to her talk for 4 years is frightening.........;)

She looks so horrible in her limited campaigning I can't even imagine how she can get through the whole campaign and first term if she did make it. She makes John McCain look like a spry young man and her face and bulging eyes betray her every word with a look of utter contempt for even having to be there.

[Clocker]

her face and bulging eyes betray her every word with a look of utter contempt for even having to be there.

It is obvious that she hates the whole campaign process, hates having to pretend to like people, and particularly hates talking to the media. This attitude was shown at its peak by her "What difference does it make" moment while being questioned by Congress, which she also hates.

It is clear that she thinks the presidency is an entitlement, and is resigned to going through the miserable ceremony of an election needed to have it handed to her.

[Tom]

I can't imagine how anyone could listen to her and think leadership.
The bar has been lowered.

[fast4522]

It is obvious that she hates the whole campaign process, hates having to pretend to like people, and particularly hates talking to the media. This attitude was shown at its peak by her "What difference does it make" moment while being questioned by Congress, which she also hates.

It is clear that she thinks the presidency is an entitlement, and is resigned to going through the miserable ceremony of an election needed to have it handed to her.

I think when Bill Clinton was running for the Presidency they threw everything at him and it was like he was the Teflon candidate, the media might want to give her a pass but we all know what is coming.

[LottaKash]

If one has to be president, I'd take Hillary...painful choice, though.

It is painful to me to hear that from you...And from any others as well..

She belonged to the California "Communist Party" when she was in college, and I am sad to say that not much has changed about her, since...

Pretty easy to see that about her, if you look at her public life with that view in mind of her....

She doesn't give a rat's ass about you or anyone else other than her elitist buddies...I am surprised, no saddened, that so many others can't or refuse to see this side to her, and her slickster hubby, who happens to love the Chicoms.....

[fast4522]

It is painful to me to hear that from you...And from any others as well..

She belonged to the California "Communist Party" when she was in college, and I am sad to say that not much has changed about her, since...

Pretty easy to see that about her, if you look at her public life with that view in mind of her....

She doesn't give a rat's ass about you or anyone else other than her elitist buddies...I am surprised, no saddened, that so many others can't or refuse to see this side to her, and her slickster hubby, who happens to love the Chicoms.....

They call themselves "opinion elites".

[LottaKash]

They call themselves "opinion elites".

I have another name for them...haha...

[Clocker]

She belonged to the California "Communist Party" when she was in college, and I am sad to say that not much has changed about her, since...


She has progressed well beyond the typical street level, pampered American Communist. A major early influence on her politics was Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules for Radicals". A later political mentor is George Soros and his Open Society agenda. Soros has praised her as having an exceptional understanding of his policies.

[elysiantraveller]

How many on here have actually read rules for radicals? Just curious.

[Clocker]

Hillary rolled out her sweeping economic policies today. Yawn. :rolleyes:

In her speech, Clinton proposed three prongs for her economic policies: strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth. What that looks like in policy terms: raising wages (especially for women), boosting participation in the workforce, encouraging profit-sharing for firms' employees, and deploying so-called "empowerment zones" to encourage growth in downtrodden cities. If that last one sounds familiar, it's because another candidate—Sen. Rand Paul—has already proposed a similar idea.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/hillary-clinton-unveils-economic-agenda-but-can-t-shake-wall-street-questions-20150713

No details on how she plans to accomplish any of that. It is assumed that she will want to increase the minimum wage, but she has not said what she thinks it should be.

Bernie Sanders has a little different take on the economy. He says that the number one priority is redistribution of wealth, even at the cost of economic growth.

“Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1 percent,” Sanders said in a recent interview, even if that redistribution slows the economy overall.

“Unchecked growth – especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent – is absurd,” he said. “Where we’ve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but we’ve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then there’s less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then there’s less worry about growth for the sake of growth.”



Bernie has at least one edge over Hillary. He is never boring. :p

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society/

[reckless]

How many on here have actually read rules for radicals? Just curious.

I did, in college when I was a freshman.

I started out as a believer -- youth is indeed wasted on the young -- but didn't care for the book's message. I always felt I was lucky enough to have learned even then that there's a story, and then there's a story behind the story.

I didn't like what I perceived to have been the story behind the story. Time has proven that my instinct was correct.

Creeps like Obama, the Clintons, Cass Sunstein, and now a lightweight like NYC mayor Bill de Blasio, learned well the lessons taught in Rules for Radicals -- and their never-ending goal of destroying America and its values.

[delayjf]

She belonged to the California "Communist Party" when she was in college, and I am sad to say that not much has changed about her, since...

I hope they pound that home during the election, and any vintage footage that may go along with her Communist ties and her association with other liberal wackos like Bill Ayers.

[elysiantraveller]

I did, in college when I was a freshman.

A lot of it exists in a vacuum as kind of a "how to" book. The man, however, was fairly pragmatic. I like reading Alinsky as a reference point for power struggle and he is very good at articulating it. I feel conservatives give him a very bum rap without much thought. Wish more people would actually read it instead of pointing fingers at those that do.

Machiavelli is appreciated despite the disturbing nature of his ideas. Alinsky is much less disturbing and significantly more reviled.

[JustRalph]

I hope they pound that home during the election, and any vintage footage that may go along with her Communist ties and her association with other liberal wackos like Bill Ayers.

I'd be surprised if there's anything new. OBAMA would have used it, if it's out there. Maybe something has been discovered recently, who knows?

[reckless]

A lot of it exists in a vacuum as kind of a "how to" book. The man, however, was fairly pragmatic. I like reading Alinsky as a reference point for power struggle and he is very good at articulating it. I feel conservatives give him a very bum rap without much thought. Wish more people would actually read it instead of pointing fingers at those that do. Machiavelli is appreciated despite the disturbing nature of his ideas. Alinsky is much less disturbing and significantly more reviled.

I can't speak for all conservatives but the conservatives I know and talk politics with have read him and we are not giving him a bum rap!

I agree with you with the 'wish' more people should read Saul Alinsky -- it's the best way to defeat the enemy, and Obama, the Clintons, Sanders and the out-of-the-mainstream left wing Democrats and Republicans are the enemy.

[delayjf]

I'd be surprised if there's anything new. OBAMA would have used it, if it's out there. Maybe something has been discovered recently, who knows?

For what its worth, it was news to me. So I'm keeping my fingers cross, hoping more is discovered.

[Tor Ekman]

I'd be surprised if there's anything new. OBAMA would have used it, if it's out there. Maybe something has been discovered recently, who knows?I think Obama and the Clintons each had the goods on the other so that a "mutually assured destruction" pact was in place and neither pushed the button

[davew]

the Clinton camp have New York Times change the headline and story content because they did not like it

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/new-york-times-alters-clinton-email-story-211176.html?ml=po

[rastajenk]

I think the long story is thus: There is no love between the Clintons and the Obamas; Hillary will have to run against his positions of some of the issues to claim the unofficial position of Leader of the Party. The only one who can run on defending the entire Obama Legacy is Biden. So the Obamas will allow enough investigatory pressure from Justice to derail the Clinton candidacy to set it up for a late Biden run to preserve the "progress" of the Obama Administration. There is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Members of the media could be facing a tough Pete Seeger question in a few months: Which side are you on, son, which side are you on? :p

[Greyfox]

preserve the "progress" of the Obama Administration. There

Does the "progress of the Obama Administration." fall into the OXYMORON catergory?

[TJDave]

So the Obamas will allow enough investigatory pressure from Justice to derail the Clinton candidacy to set it up for a late Biden run to preserve the "progress" of the Obama Administration. There is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Just talk. Outgoing administrations don't do this stuff. Not even to opposing party candidates. Not out of any sense of responsibility or fairness but because of what the next administration might expose. The President's club plays by different rules. Any official investigation of Clinton will go nowhere.

[rastajenk]

I don't think the Obamas respect any rules or precedents. They came from Chicago, why would they?

[TJDave]

I don't think the Obamas respect any rules or precedents. They came from Chicago, why would they?

Because they expect the same of the next president. ;)

[Tom]

I don't think the Obamas respect any rules or precedents. They came from KENYA, why would they?

FTFY.

The Kenyan Krime Kabal.

[Robert Goren]

Whether Hillary is the next president will not be decided by what she does or by what she did or didn't do in the past. Her fate will be decided by who her republican opponent is and the how his campaign unfolds. With all the foolishness going on in the GOP right now, her chances of becoming president are pretty good and increasing every day. The tide could turn, but it will not be turned by her, but rather, if it is turned, it will be done by the republicans.

[Tom]

As long a people are willing to literally let her get away with murder and treason, she can win. She should be rotting in prison. Far too many Americans are blithering, lazy idiots. The obvious BS they accept is amazing.

[_______]

Clinton is far from a perfect candidate. Her flaws as a campaigner were exposed in 2008 and, surprisingly, remain on display in 2015.

The main issue I see is a speaking style that just sounds insincere. I don't know if she believes what she is saying or not. But I know that she always sounds like she is giving a speech, not talking. Obama, teleprompter and all, sounds sincere. His speeches sound like what I imagine his natural voice would be.

I'm a little amazed that 7 years on, nothing has been done to improve the way she speaks in public.

I still think this is an election cycle that is likely to favor the Democratic candidate. But Hillary isn't Bill. I've seen polling in swing states (Colorado and Nevada) that show both Rubio and Bush running ahead of her. I don't put a lot of faith in early polls but still find that encouraging.

[davew]

The main issue I see is a speaking style that just sounds insincere. I don't know if she believes what she is saying or not. But I know that she always sounds like she is giving a speech, not talking. Obama, teleprompter and all, sounds sincere. His speeches sound like what I imagine his natural voice would be.

I'm a little amazed that 7 years on, nothing has been done to improve the way she speaks in public.




The reason it sounds insincere is that she is not as good of a liar as her husband or 0bama.

[ArlJim78]

I fully expect granny's max headroom campaign to implode. She is waaay overrated. She'll never become president.
I've long said she'll never be the nominee much less president, and sticking with that. She is sinking in unpopularity and latest is this call for criminal investigation of her emails. It's only a matter of time that her big donors start to realize that they've backed a complete dud and the whole thing will unravel. She has no accomplishments or charisma and tons of baggage.

[_______]

The reason it sounds insincere is that she is not as good of a liar as her husband or 0bama.

Not really. It's something that's completly fixable. Either she's too stubborn to make the effort or doesn't believe it's needed for her to win. I refuse to believe she's unaware of the problem.

[Tom]

I'm a little amazed that 7 years on, nothing has been done to improve the way she speaks in public.

Frankenstein developed much more during his first 7 movies than Hillary has in 7 years.


Was better looking from day 1.

[magwell]

Hard to believe after what this country has been through in last 6 years that anybody in their right mind would what the Hag to take over.........SMH :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

I'm a little amazed that 7 years on, nothing has been done to improve the way she speaks in public.



Hillary was 60 and is now 67 years old. Higher expectations is unrealistic IMO.

[Clocker]

Hillary was 60 and is now 67 years old. Higher expectations is unrealistic IMO.

Oh good. The woman is on the down hill slide of late life, and libs expect us to believe that she will be capable of leading this country after she has turned 69? She has virtually zero notable accomplishment in the first 67 years of her life, other than being Mrs. Clinton, so how could anyone possibly imagine that things will get better?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I just read an article with a gallup poll showing the socialist up 100% to 24% favorable in 3 months while the Hill continues the steady decline. Bernie friggin Sanders is closing the gap on the lead pipe cinch of the century while two dozen of the best Republicans can't crack Trump. There's hope yet for the country.

[reckless]

Oh good. The woman is on the down hill slide of late life, and libs expect us to believe that she will be capable of leading this country after she has turned 69? She has virtually zero notable accomplishment in the first 67 years of her life, other than being Mrs. Clinton, so how could anyone possibly imagine that things will get better?

Never underestimate the stupidity of the lunatic fringe on the left.

[Tom]

She has virtually zero notable accomplishment in the first 67 years of her life, other than being Mrs. Clinton,

Benghazi, don't forget that.
And she coined phrase Right wing conspiracy while insisting the her husband "did not have sex with that women, Miss Lewinski." :lol:

But seriously, she is still learning and growing. Why, just this year, she learned that you can have more than one e mail account a device. She's up to what now, third grade level?

What is she, that big a liar or that big an idiot?

[Robert Goren]

Benghazi, don't forget that.
And she coined phrase Right wing conspiracy while insisting the her husband "did not have sex with that women, Miss Lewinski." :lol:

But seriously, she is still learning and growing. Why, just this year, she learned that you can have more than one e mail account a device. She's up to what now, third grade level?

What is she, that big a liar or that big an idiot?Not any dumber than thinking a wall or fence is going stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

[RunForTheRoses]

I've long said she'll never be the nominee much less president, and sticking with that. She is sinking in unpopularity and latest is this call for criminal investigation of her emails. It's only a matter of time that her big donors start to realize that they've backed a complete dud and the whole thing will unravel. She has no accomplishments or charisma and tons of baggage.

I see what you are saying, she is very loathsome to me. But I work with all Marxists, Afro Marxists and other assorted left wingers (it sucks, I'm behind enemy lines). They feel it is time for a woman as president. Carly or any Republican doesn't even register to them. If she gets the Democrap nom she then has all the electoral power of California, New York, Massachusetts etc and unfortunately I think she will be the 45t Prez, as things stand now. I guess who knows what could happen in the next year, the economy could implode, war, excessive racial tensions, etc.

[magwell]

I also spend time behind enemy lines and from what I hear except for some white women, the Hag is not well liked and the men couldn't care less about her, so she will get people that just always vote Dem if they vote at all next year imo .........:)

[RunForTheRoses]

I also spend time behind enemy lines and from what I hear except for some white women, the Hag is not well liked and the men couldn't care less about her, so she will get people that just always vote Dem if they vote at all next year imo .........:)

Yeah, the black vote won't be as mobilized in the next election unless they can be manipulated into believing the non-Democrap will put them back in chains which there will be an attempt to. Hilary did dis the Great Obammy too:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670920/The-moment-Hillary-Clinton-let-loose-Obama-booze-fueled-rant-new-book-reveals.html

[Tom]

Not any dumber than thinking a wall or fence is going stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

That doesn't even come close to what my post was about, Just more flinging your poop at the wall. Robot reply. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Step up your game man!

[Greyfox]

Not any dumber than thinking a wall or fence is going stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

Walls are deterrents.
Would you be in favor of having all prisons without walls?

[fast4522]

Walls are deterrents.
Would you be in favor of having all prisons without walls?

Prior to Folsom prison having walls, they had dandy gattling guns in towers for the runners. The 45 70 often could yield 2 for 1.

[PaceAdvantage]

Walls are deterrents.
Would you be in favor of having all prisons without walls?Why yes he would! After all, people still break out of prison...why have walls? :lol:

[fast4522]

Hillary. . . . .

Jpegs I was posting here over a week ago are showing up now on business insider, I do not know how much legs Mr Trump has or if he will make it to home stretch but Hillary is getting hammered in the polls.

[NJ Stinks]

Oh good. The woman is on the down hill slide of late life, and libs expect us to believe that she will be capable of leading this country after she has turned 69? She has virtually zero notable accomplishment in the first 67 years of her life, other than being Mrs. Clinton, so how could anyone possibly imagine that things will get better?

I'd leave this alone but the double-standard is just too much for even you to miss. Ron Reagan was losing his mind during his second term but that was OK because his advisors were there to "refresh" his memory. Meanwhile, Hillary didn't become a better public speaker at 67 than she was at 60 and you insist this is conclusive evidence that she is going downhill fast and no longer capable of leading this country?

What lunatic fringe would buy this BS? Reckless, maybe you can help Clocker figure it out.

[Robert Goren]

Walls are deterrents.
Would you be in favor of having all prisons without walls?Do you really believe that somebody from Central or South America (most of the current crop of illegals crossing the border) who made there way all the way across Mexico is going to be stopped by a wall. They are go to get past the wall the same way they get passed the 20-50 miles of rough terrain just inside of the border. They are going to hire someone to get them past it by going over, under or just plain through it. Desperate people find a way. A wall is a costly solution that isn't not going to work. The Chinese tried building a wall to keep people out 2200 years ago. It did not work then and it won't work now. If you want to keep illegals out, then you have to take away their reason for coming. That means cracking down of the small businesses that hire them.
If Trump was really serious about doing something about illegals instead just talking, he would fire the contractors and sub contractors he uses that employ them. He does not have a problem firing anybody else. By setting an example of what a businessmen should do, he would be show real leadership in a field of GOP hopefuls that is nothing more than a bunch of talking head trying to say the political correct words that the far right wing wants to hear the loudest.

[fast4522]

All has to be employed dealing with the problem, deportation at the top of the list.

[zico20]

Do you really believe that somebody from Central or South America (most of the current crop of illegals crossing the border) who made there way all the way across Mexico is going to be stopped by a wall. They are go to get past the wall the same way they get passed the 20-50 miles of rough terrain just inside of the border. They are going to hire someone to get them past it by going over, under or just plain through it. Desperate people find a way. A wall is a costly solution that isn't not going to work. The Chinese tried building a wall to keep people out 2200 years ago. It did not work then and it won't work now. If you want to keep illegals out, then you have to take away their reason for coming. That means cracking down of the small businesses that hire them.
If Trump was really serious about doing something about illegals instead just talking, he would fire the contractors and sub contractors he uses that employ them. He does not have a problem firing anybody else. By setting an example of what a businessmen should do, he would be show real leadership in a field of GOP hopefuls that is nothing more than a bunch of talking head trying to say the political correct words that the far right wing wants to hear the loudest.

You can't be serious with the wall thing. Do it right and no one will get in. Build a double wall with water in between and electricity in the water so anybody that touches the water gets fried. Plus build another chain link fence besides the concrete walls that is high voltage. Get the picture. Sure it will cost a ton of money, but then again Obama likes spending a ton of money. As he says, it will bolster the economy spending money on works projects. Triple the border patrol. Plus drones looking out for anybody that comes near the wall. If you really want to secure it even further, place landmines in between the concrete walls and the high voltage electrical fence. After a few get blown up, the word will get out and border crossings will stop all together.

Sure to you this will sound radical, but please don't tell us that we cannot secure our southern border if we really wanted to. And no, I would not give a damn if a few illegals got blown up if it meant keeping them out long term.

[Greyfox]

Do you really believe that somebody from Central or South America (most of the current crop of illegals crossing the border) who made there way all the way across Mexico is going to be stopped by a wall........
Desperate people find a way.

Walls are effective.
Yes. Essentially a wall would definitely bring the current flood to a trickle.
Knowing a wall is there, many wouldn't even make that trek.
The wall by San Diego seems to work for the most part.

When the Soviets built a wall around East Berlin, it was very, very effective.
The Soviets knew that shooting people attempting to cross that wall was a huge deterrent.
Within prison walls there are a lot of desperate people. The vast vast majority remain that way until we decide when they can come out.

[davew]

You can't be serious with the wall thing. Do it right and no one will get in. Build a double wall with water in between and electricity in the water so anybody that touches the water gets fried. Plus build another chain link fence besides the concrete walls that is high voltage. Get the picture. Sure it will cost a ton of money, but then again Obama likes spending a ton of money. As he says, it will bolster the economy spending money on works projects. Triple the border patrol. Plus drones looking out for anybody that comes near the wall. If you really want to secure it even further, place landmines in between the concrete walls and the high voltage electrical fence. After a few get blown up, the word will get out and border crossings will stop all together.

Sure to you this will sound radical, but please don't tell us that we cannot secure our southern border if we really wanted to. And no, I would not give a damn if a few illegals got blown up if it meant keeping them out long term.

drug cartels are acting as guides and are very good at tunnels - a good fence would slow the crossing, but not stop it.

[TJDave]

Walls are effective.
Yes. Essentially a wall would definitely bring the current flood to a trickle.
Knowing a wall is there, many wouldn't even make that trek.
The wall by San Diego seems to work for the most part.

When the Soviets built a wall around East Berlin, it was very, very effective.
The Soviets knew that shooting people attempting to cross that wall was a huge deterrent.
Within prison walls there are a lot of desperate people. The vast vast majority remain that way until we decide when they can come out.

Walls are only as effective as the costs and penalties involved for breaching them. Walls are expensive. Ladders and shovels are cheap.

[Greyfox]

Walls are only as effective as the costs and penalties involved for breaching them. Walls are expensive. Ladders and shovels are cheap.

My back yard is fenced.
My next door neighbor's yard isn't.
About three times a year he is writing out police reports of stolen items such as bikes, batteries, etc.
In 39 years in my house, I've never had anything taken from the back yard.
(No. I don't have a crocodile or pit bull guarding it.)

Wall's are deterrents. Fact.

[Tom]

Land mines are cheap and effective.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Walls are effective.
When the Soviets built a wall around East Berlin, it was very, very effective.
The Soviets knew that shooting people attempting to cross that wall was a huge deterrent.


This is the key point. You really don't need a wall, if stepping into "No Man's Land" gets you shot.

Rather than build a wall, the Feds simply ought to rent out border tracts to U.S. citizens wanting to test out night vision goggles and sniper rifles. Anything that moves is fair game.

Problem solved.

[Greyfox]

This is the key point. You really don't need a wall, if stepping into "No Man's Land" gets you shot.

Rather than build a wall, the Feds simply ought to rent out border tracts to U.S. citizens wanting to test out night vision goggles and sniper rifles. Anything that moves is fair game.

Problem solved.

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

[Clocker]

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

It isn't 2000 mile long, and the North Koreans are committed to keeping their people from crossing. The US border would be a lot more effective if the Mexican government was committed to containing their people.

[ReplayRandall]

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

There are 28,000 reasons why it works, as in US Troops... :rolleyes:

[Robert Goren]

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Koreans who cross over to South Korea, just there were a lot of people who escaped from East Germany to West Germany. But those two examples of wall are not really analogous. The two example cited were of one country trying to keep people in and the other side welcoming them with open arms. I don't think you will find a case where a wall was used successfully to keep people out.
I still maintain that the only way to stop illegal immigration is to take a way the reason they are coming here, jobs. It is not something the republicans or even the conservatives posters here are willing to address because it means sending republicans voters to jail. I guarantee if we start giving employers who hire illegal immigrants a 5 year jail sentence, you will see a huge drop in the number of illegals in this country. No jobs means no reason to be here. Building a wall is like putting lotion on a rash. It only treats the symptoms and not the disease. We know how to treat this disease, it just matter of having the will to do it. Trump and his supporters are in the lotion selling business.

[Greyfox]

No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Koreans who cross over to South Korea, just there were a lot of people who escaped from East Germany to West Germany.

You exaggerate eh. A few each year is not a lot.

[Tom]

No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Korea

Define a lot.
Is it 11 million, or 22 million, depending on who you listen to for how many have crossed here?

Come on Bobby, you can't seriously compare the two borders. :lol::lol::lol:

[Clocker]

Because the Korean border is so tough to sneak through, the normal route for North Korean defectors is through China.

[dartman51]

the only way to stop illegal immigration is to take a way the reason they are coming here, jobs[/B]. It is not something the republicans or even the conservatives posters here are willing to address because it means sending republicans voters to jail. I guarantee if we start giving employers who hire illegal immigrants a 5 year jail sentence, you will see a huge drop in the number of illegals in this country. No jobs means no reason to be here. Building a wall is like putting lotion on a rash. It only treats the symptoms and not the disease. We know how to treat this disease, it just matter of having the will to do it. Trump and his supporters are in the lotion selling business.

I actually agree with you, Robert. But I would start with a HUGE fine for the first offence, then a 5 year jail sentence, for ANY employer, hiring even 1 illegal. I don't care if it a private citizen hiring a maid, or someone working in their yard. Stop ALL ILLEGALS from obtaining drivers license, welfare, free education, or any other freebees. Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border. :ThmbUp:

[OntheRail]

I actually agree with you, Robert. But I would start with a HUGE fine for the first offence, then a 5 year jail sentence, for ANY employer, hiring even 1 illegal. I don't care if it a private citizen hiring a maid, or someone working in their yard. Stop ALL ILLEGALS from obtaining drivers license, welfare, free education, or any other freebees. Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border. :ThmbUp:
Ding Ding Ding... winner winner. Was going to post about the same thing. In other words stop the Liberal give a ways.

[FocusWiz]

Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border. :ThmbUp:While I tend to agree with the concept presented, I think it may be overly liberal to interpret the law as automatically making children of people in this country illegally into United States Citizens as the law currently stands. I realize that this is a commonly held belief, but a nuance of this law was pointed out to me by an immigrant who is and has been in this country legally for decades.

In general, a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. The phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" has no clear definition and may mean that people here without legal status are still under the jurisdiction of their home country or at least not under ours since to be under our jurisdiction, I would think we would have needed to have granted their residence here some legal basis.

One court case worth noting is Elk versus Wilkins where the court held that children of Native Americans were not automatically citizens of the United States unless the parents had been naturalized by treaty or by a federal collective naturalization statute, or taxed or recognized as a citizen by the United States or a state. In other words, such Native Americans still had their main allegiance to their tribe and, as such, were members of a political entity other than the United States of America. In much the same way, I would contend that a foreign citizen in the United States has their primary allegiance to their true home country and are not to the United States unless there is some concept giving the United States similar jurisdiction. They cannot legally work here, but they do pay Sales Tax, so conceivably that could be enough to make their children citizens. It took an act of Congress to grant citizenship to all Native Americans.

In United States versus Wong Kim Ark, it was determined that even though the parents had primary allegiance to the Chinese emperor, they were under the jurisdiction of the United States. While this has long been touted as the basis for claiming that anyone born here is a citizen, I no longer believe that this is settled law. Although the federal court decision made no distinction between being in the United States lawfully or unlawfully there was no need to since the child's parents were legal resident aliens at the time of the child's birth. They did note that the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at the time of the Child's birth (and were not diplomats from China). While I could never conceive of someone here illegally as having a permanent (though extremely tentative) residence, I am neither an immigration expert nor a lawyer.

However, since being informed of this, I have read articles where it was argued that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to apply to the children of individuals who were not in any way granted authorization to be here (and hence not under United States jurisdiction).

Just some food for thought, that our laws may actually have this situation covered. I do not think this has ever gone to court (and likely never will), but if the current law does not disallow it, we would likely need to amend the constitution (a much slower and more difficult process) to fix this problem.

[magwell]

I think the long story is thus: There is no love between the Clintons and the Obamas; Hillary will have to run against his positions of some of the issues to claim the unofficial position of Leader of the Party. The only one who can run on defending the entire Obama Legacy is Biden. So the Obamas will allow enough investigatory pressure from Justice to derail the Clinton candidacy to set it up for a late Biden run to preserve the "progress" of the Obama Administration. There is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Members of the media could be facing a tough Pete Seeger question in a few months: Which side are you on, son, which side are you on? :pI think your on to something , if Obama lets her get run over by the bus in Oct by Gowdy, he than could have Biden to run, knowing Sanders has no shot and then he could still direct traffic behind Uncle Joe.

[Clocker]

Information about the latest probe into Hillary's email issues was leaked to the NY Times, and the Times says the info came from a "senior government official". I have seen a number of articles from political analysts who say such a leak would only come from the White House, and only with administration knowledge.

Michael Goodwin of the NY Post speculates that the leak came from Valerie Jarrett.

Somebody very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe. The New York Times, which broke the story, identified its source only as “a senior government official.”

My money is on Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ Rasputin, who is known to despise Clinton. If it was Jarrett, she would not do this against the president’s wishes.

That also would be true for any “senior government official” who leaked the memos. Targets don’t get any bigger than Hillary Clinton, so this was not a rogue operation. This was an approved hit.

Clinton has an enemies list — and it looks like she’s on Obama’s. It’s also possible the White House is using the issue to keep her in line on the Iranian nuke deal. The implied threat is “look what happened to Robert Menendez.”

Either way, she had it coming. Her arrogance and bald-faced lies about the emails must have infuriated her boss and colleagues. Her decision to conduct government business on a private server in her home and use personal email accounts was a giant “f–k you”

http://nypost.com/2015/07/26/hillary-has-a-dangerous-enemy-in-the-obama-administration/

[Tom]

Beware of Kerry in the wings.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

At this rate, Hillary will drop out prior to the primaries. Probably some vague health issue will be provided as the reason, though it won't be from a bad ticker - 'cause of course she has no heart.

I was looking forward to her debating, since there's so much good ammo to use against her. And it would hardly take a skilled opponent to get under her skin, and set her off.

When she drops out, I'll feel cheated.

[davew]

Beware of Kerry in the wings.


an extra confident boost after the great Iran deal, and will continue 0bama's policys of bringing down America to 3rd world status

[Clocker]

an extra confident boost after the great Iran deal, and will continue 0bama's policys of bringing down America to 3rd world status

You need to keep up. Obama says that under his administration we are once again the most respected country in the world.

[davew]

You need to keep up. Obama says that under his administration we are once again the most respected country in the world.


Being the first Kenyan American (that's what he called himself giving a speech there) president, he knows that 3rd world countries can be the most respected in the world.

[fast4522]

What the democrat's have up their sleeve is the new world order, they insist on taking advantage of opportunists like this monstrous pair.

[rastajenk]

... if Obama lets her get run over by the bus in Oct by Gowdy, he than could have Biden to run, knowing Sanders has no shot and then he could still direct traffic behind Uncle Joe.It's not even about pulling the strings, although it certainly could be like that. But if Obama has the confidence his stuff wouldn't be undone, then he can enjoy the post-presidential glow that Clinton has experienced (and that Bush Jr will never get) as the soul of the party, or its Elder Statesman, and continue to influence things in a more general way. For a long time. If a Clinton wins, his future could take a whole other trajectory that isn't nearly as appealing.

Obama as an ex-president is almost as dreadful a thought as a sitting pres.

[dartman51]

While I tend to agree with the concept presented, I think it may be overly liberal to interpret the law as automatically making children of people in this country illegally into United States Citizens as the law currently stands. I realize that this is a commonly held belief, but a nuance of this law was pointed out to me by an immigrant who is and has been in this country legally for decades.

In general, a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. The phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" has no clear definition and may mean that people here without legal status are still under the jurisdiction of their home country or at least not under ours since to be under our jurisdiction, I would think we would have needed to have granted their residence here some legal basis.

One court case worth noting is Elk versus Wilkins where the court held that children of Native Americans were not automatically citizens of the United States unless the parents had been naturalized by treaty or by a federal collective naturalization statute, or taxed or recognized as a citizen by the United States or a state. In other words, such Native Americans still had their main allegiance to their tribe and, as such, were members of a political entity other than the United States of America. In much the same way, I would contend that a foreign citizen in the United States has their primary allegiance to their true home country and are not to the United States unless there is some concept giving the United States similar jurisdiction. They cannot legally work here, but they do pay Sales Tax, so conceivably that could be enough to make their children citizens. It took an act of Congress to grant citizenship to all Native Americans.

In United States versus Wong Kim Ark, it was determined that even though the parents had primary allegiance to the Chinese emperor, they were under the jurisdiction of the United States. While this has long been touted as the basis for claiming that anyone born here is a citizen, I no longer believe that this is settled law. Although the federal court decision made no distinction between being in the United States lawfully or unlawfully there was no need to since the child's parents were legal resident aliens at the time of the child's birth. They did note that the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at the time of the Child's birth (and were not diplomats from China). While I could never conceive of someone here illegally as having a permanent (though extremely tentative) residence, I am neither an immigration expert nor a lawyer.

However, since being informed of this, I have read articles where it was argued that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to apply to the children of individuals who were not in any way granted authorization to be here (and hence not under United States jurisdiction).

Just some food for thought, that our laws may actually have this situation covered. I do not think this has ever gone to court (and likely never will), but if the current law does not disallow it, we would likely need to amend the constitution (a much slower and more difficult process) to fix this problem.

I think that is open to interpretation. I do know, that every time the right talks about deporting ALL illegal aliens, someone from the LEFT, always points out that you can't do that because a lot of these people have children, who are citizens, and you can't deport citizens, and you can't separate the children from their parents. I believe the term "subject to it's jurisdiction" includes ANYONE who is a resident of the U.S., with the possible exception of Diplomats. If you live here you are BOUND by the laws here, unless you live in a 'sanctuary city', or, your name is Clinton. :rolleyes:

[FocusWiz]

I think that is open to interpretation. I do know, that every time the right talks about deporting ALL illegal aliens, someone from the LEFT, always points out that you can't do that because a lot of these people have children, who are citizens, and you can't deport citizens, and you can't separate the children from their parents. I believe the term "subject to it's jurisdiction" includes ANYONE who is a resident of the U.S., with the possible exception of Diplomats. If you live here you are BOUND by the laws here, unless you live in a 'sanctuary city', or, your name is Clinton. :rolleyes:I believe the majority in this country agrees with what you wrote and I think the likelihood is that the courts would agree if it came to them.

Hence, a Congressional Law won't be enough to fix this. If that interpretation is correct, then the Fourteenth Amendment would have to be modified with respect to this phrase:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.I do not think such a change to the constitution is likely given today's political climate.

[fast4522]

It's not even about pulling the strings, although it certainly could be like that. But if Obama has the confidence his stuff wouldn't be undone, then he can enjoy the post-presidential glow that Clinton has experienced (and that Bush Jr will never get) as the soul of the party, or its Elder Statesman, and continue to influence things in a more general way. For a long time. If a Clinton wins, his future could take a whole other trajectory that isn't nearly as appealing.

Obama as an ex-president is almost as dreadful a thought as a sitting pres.

I do not see Obama being dreadful as an ex-president if we deny him the station he desires while in office as the stupid SOB who broke the seventh seal and started the end of days. I wish the guy well in retirement and think we all have to pray that he does no further damage, we are quite vulnerable in this slot of time we are currently in.

Someone exactly like Donald Trump could make America great again, someone has to.

[Clocker]

Hillary was asked about her position on the Keystone pipeline at a campaign event.

"If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question," Clinton said. "This is President Obama's decision. I'm not going to second-guess him."

She has been equally vague on a lot of other issues. So I guess we will have to elect her to find out what her programs will be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/hillary-clintons-ridiculous-hedge-on-keystone/

[davew]

Hillary was asked about her position on the Keystone pipeline at a campaign event.



She has been equally vague on a lot of other issues. So I guess we will have to elect her to find out what her programs will be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/hillary-clintons-ridiculous-hedge-on-keystone/


almost sounds like Nancy Pelosi, wish she was running instead....

[fast4522]

A new Busty blond mistress code name "Energizer" is reported, for a guy who has had open heart surgery?

http://thesop.org/story/20140722/bill-clintons-mistress-given-code-name-energizer-by-secret-service-video.html

[Hoofless_Wonder]

A new Busty blond mistress code name "Energizer" is reported, for a guy who has had open heart surgery?

http://thesop.org/story/20140722/bill-clintons-mistress-given-code-name-energizer-by-secret-service-video.html

A leopard doesn`t change his spots, and Bill Clinton will continue to fool around until his heart stops beating or his pecker falls off.

In his book Kessler reveals that Hillary is a real (rhymes with witch) to the agents who protect her life. If Hillary wants the agents to sneak in bimbos for her entertainment, she`d better start being nice to them.

Both statements are true. Slick Willy is a human billy-goat, and Queen Hillary needs to learn the concept of "friendly fire"..... :D

[dartman51]

Hillary was asked about her position on the Keystone pipeline at a campaign event.



She has been equally vague on a lot of other issues. So I guess we will have to elect her to find out what her programs will be.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/28/hillary-clintons-ridiculous-hedge-on-keystone/


:lol: Kinda like, "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it."
With Hillary, it's, "you have to elect me President, to get my answer." :D

[magwell]

:lol: Kinda like, "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it."
With Hillary, it's, "you have to elect me President, to get my answer." :DNow that's true and funny.......:D

[Greyfox]

Hillary was asked about her position on the Keystone pipeline at a campaign event.



It's a dicey issue for her to comment on when she knows that Obama is most likely going to reject the pipeline shortly.
Also, Hillary needs to keep the "greenies" in her camp.
But in some instances, (not related to rape), "She didn't say No, therefore she said Yes" might apply.
My guess is that Hillary would pass the pipeline in an instant.

[Tom]

Now that's true and funny.......:D

And what is sad is that so many people, including a few here, not only buy that garbage, they DEFEND it!

You can't fix stupid.

[fast4522]

What is there to defend?

[magwell]

At this rate, Hillary will drop out prior to the primaries. Probably some vague health issue will be provided as the reason, though it won't be from a bad ticker - 'cause of course she has no heart.

I was looking forward to her debating, since there's so much good ammo to use against her. And it would hardly take a skilled opponent to get under her skin, and set her off.

When she drops out, I'll feel cheated.When T. Gowdy gets done with her in Oct. Biden will have to step up they have no bench. Obama will not bail her out of the mess she's in IMO........;)

[Hank]

I do not see Obama being dreadful as an ex-president if we deny him the station he desires while in office as the stupid SOB who broke the seventh seal and started the end of days. I wish the guy well in retirement and think we all have to pray that he does no further damage, we are quite vulnerable in this slot of time we are currently in.

Someone exactly like Donald Trump could make America great again, someone has to.

http://webmbassy.com/03935

[johnhannibalsmith]

I know few here other than maybe mosite still watch Meet the Press weekly, but if Hillary's pathetic campaign and resulting numbers weren't bad enough, Todd's segment with Deb Poodleman Schultz or whatever her name is should really make devout Dems nervous. God that was pathetic. The head of the DNC was incapable of answering a single question. The Republicans are at a total loss to figure out what's going on and clearly the Democrats are finding themselves in the same panicked state. It was fantastic.

[magwell]

I know few here other than maybe mosite still watch Meet the Press weekly, but if Hillary's pathetic campaign and resulting numbers weren't bad enough, Todd's segment with Deb Poodleman Schultz or whatever her name is should really make devout Dems nervous. God that was pathetic. The head of the DNC was incapable of answering a single question. The Republicans are at a total loss to figure out what's going on and clearly the Democrats are finding themselves in the same panicked state. It was fantastic.Debbie aka Maggie Simpson couldn't answer, because the right answer would be..... they are the same.....:rolleyes:

[davew]

last few years, Bill and Hillary made over $15 million in charitable contributions

the major recipient was them -> the Clinton Foundation, so they can fly around in private jets and stay in nice hotels.... while giving earth saving speeches

[dartman51]

last few years, Bill and Hillary made over $15 million in charitable contributions

the major recipient was them -> the Clinton Foundation, so they can fly around in private jets and stay in nice hotels.... while giving earth saving speeches


Yeah, I believe the figure was, all but $250k, was donated to the Clinton Foundation. In other words, .017% of donations were given to charities, other than, the Clinton Foundation. :eek:

[OntheRail]

Yeah, I believe the figure was, all but $250k, was donated to the Clinton Foundation. In other words, .017% of donations were given to charities, other than, the Clinton Foundation. :eek:
Well you have to figure in administrative cost... in distributing the remaining funds. They just have to hire another relative to make it a 0 sum payout.

Slim in Slick... ;)

[davew]

The emails to/from Cheryl Mills have been / will be all deleted.

They must want to save all that time looking at wedding stuff and such....

http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-cheryl-mills-to-destroy-emails-about-hillary-clinton/


not a smidgen of impropriety here, move along...

[Inner Dirt]

How pathetic is a candidate that takes a selfie with a no talent self absorbed air head like Kim Kardashian? We all know it is about getting votes so Clinton would not have done it if she didn't think it would help. Pretty typical who for a woman who would supposedly "stand by her man" when he was getting BJ's in the white house from a groupie young enough to be his daughter.

[Robert Goren]

How pathetic is a candidate that takes a selfie with a no talent self absorbed air head like Kim Kardashian? We all know it is about getting votes so Clinton would not have done it if she didn't think it would help. Pretty typical who for a woman who would supposedly "stand by her man" when he was getting BJ's in the white house from a groupie young enough to be his daughter.How pathetic was it that republicans tried to remove him from office when they knew some of their leaders were doing or had done exactly same thing. If anybody thinks todays crop of congressmen are any better is kidding themselves. If the past is any indication, it is likely the most self-righteous among them are the ones doing the cheating.

[Tom]

Wrong again.
Nice try at re-writing history.
He was NOT impeached for having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski.
He was impeached for a criminal offense.

Google is your friend.

[Inner Dirt]

How pathetic was it that republicans tried to remove him from office when they knew some of their leaders were doing or had done exactly same thing. If anybody thinks todays crop of congressmen are any better is kidding themselves. If the past is any indication, it is likely the most self-righteous among them are the ones doing the cheating.

Oh please, a Democrat can never do any wrong in your eyes. If Obama was caught drowning puppies you would twist it around to say it was a good thing.
Your homerism to one party is laughable. If the Democrats told you to believe in Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny you would.

[zico20]

Hillary is trying to buy votes again. This is incredibly financially irresponsible, even for a democrat.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-propose-350-billion-college-affordability-plan-040304358--election.html

[TJDave]

Hillary is trying to buy votes again. This is incredibly financially irresponsible, even for a democrat.

Democrats buy votes...Republicans restrict access. One may be more, or less, irresponsible, financially or otherwise.

[fast4522]

Oh Happy Day

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-11-18-42-15

[ArlJim78]

Nothing to see here, FBI seizes Clinton's email server and thumb drives as it is revealed that they had top secret emails on them.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI has taken possession of thumb drives containing Hillary Clinton’s emails, some of which have been deemed to contain highly sensitive classified information, according to a U.S. official briefed on the matter.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/11/fbi-has-taken-possession-of-hillarys-emails-from-home-server-u-s-official-says/

[Tom]

Today, John The Traitor Kerry told Scott Pelley on TV tonight that he thought his emails were probably being read.

Duh.

STOP USING EMAIL, you friggin' IDIOT!.
NO ONE need to use email.

The democrats should be banned from the internet for stupidity.

[Clocker]

Bernie leads Hillary 44-37 in New Hampshire. Biden is 3rd with 9%.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinto n_in_nh_44_37

[Tom]

Bernie is moving like a tremendous machine!

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Bernie is moving like a tremendous machine!

At this rate, Bernie will win by 31 percentage points in a Triple Landslide!

[johnhannibalsmith]

The second best part of this freefall is waiting to hear what kind of lame vet scratch we get if she doesn't think she's 1-9 in a walkover.

[Tom]

She thought that in 2008......the she got "baracked.":D

I'm curious how the libs are processing the fact that they found classified material on he personal computer server?

1. Incompetence
2. Lying
3. Vast right wing conspiracy
4. Bush did it

[reckless]

Bernie is moving like a tremendous machine!

Tom, I think you used this line a couple of times already and I still laugh and laugh. WTG! :lol:

[Clocker]

She thought that in 2008......the she got "baracked.":D



Limbaugh says Sanders' support isn't about Sanders, it is about Hillary. Again.

We thought the crowds, we thought the excitement and the cult-like atmosphere was unique to him. It turns out that Obama wasn't a phenomenon at all. The phenomenon happens to be anybody who runs against Hillary in a Democrat primary. I mean, that's the way I, your beloved host, choose to look at this. Bernie Sanders? Come on. Nothing against Bernie. He's a nice old codger, and he's an honest but insignificant little socialist from Vermont. A perfectly fine human being.

He's wrong about everything, but he's harmless. Bernie Sanders drawing record crowds? Barack Obama drew record crowds. What's the common denominator? Hillary Clinton. I'm here to tell you that the big secret here, the thing that nobody wants to talk about. Maybe they figured this out on the Democrat side, I don't know. But it sure seems to me that in this primary cycle and in 2008... I mean, you got Obama. He came out of nowhere. Nobody knew who he was. I mean, he hadn't made a speech. I'm not trying to put Obama down here. I'm trying to be honest and perspective. He is getting these record crowds, and we all thought, "Oh, my God!" "Oh," we thought, "he's Bill Clinton Jr. able to fool all these people with all these platitudinous speeches." It turns out given what we've seen with Bernie Sanders that the common denominator is in the Democrat Party.

They're gonna treat anybody this way who runs against Hillary







http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/08/11/bernie_sanders_phenomenon

[reckless]

The second best part of this freefall is waiting to hear what kind of lame vet scratch we get if she doesn't think she's 1-9 in a walkover.

john... For the longest time I felt that Hillary! was a poor candidate that will eventually be rejected by the Democrats. I wrote this often, long before the illegal server and email situation and even the Foundation criminality arose.

I always felt she was simply a very bad candidate, that people simply dislike her, that the country is sick of liberals ... plus the USA is really over and done with the Clintons (and Bushes, too).

I always thought that once the polls, primaries, etc., would show her to be a loser, that she'd drop out of the race at first chance claiming:

"After much thought and against the wishes of my political staff and advisors I will not run for the Presidency. I have decided to go home because being a grandma is a much more important job."

Or b-s to that effect.

It'll be Hillary!'s way of saving face, although quitting the race just might crimp the 'availability' of deviant-husband BJ Clinton, so to speak.

[Clocker]

I always thought that once the polls, primaries, etc., would show her to be a loser, that she'd drop out of the race at first chance claiming:

"After much thought and against the wishes of my political staff and advisors I will not run for the Presidency. I have decided to go home because being a grandma is a much more important job."



She is a terrible candidate. It is clear that she feels that she has already earned the job, and hates it that she has to work for it. Answering questions from those icky little reporters and pretending to actually care about voters is so demeaning to a person of her statue and accomplishments.

She has a better excuse now. With the FBI investigating her and her homebrew server, she can claim that she can't adequately run a campaign while working to clear her "good name" and prove her honesty at the same time.

[Clocker]

From Ron Fournier of the National Journal:

“I talked to a Democratic strategist today who’s done some work for the Clintons. He’s convinced that her numbers are collapsing from the top and the bottom. And they way he described it is the elite, the high informed voters don’t trust her, the low information voters don’t like her.”

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/ron-fournier-on-hillary-clinton-the-elites-dont-trust-her-and-the-low-information-voters-dont-like-her/

[Tom]

There are only two questions about Hillary that matter now.

Incompetency or treason?
To me, there is no doubt she has been selling classified information to build her campaign coffers.

Time for criminal investigations to begins, an time to start taking applications for the firing squad she surely must eventually face.

[magwell]

If that server is wiped clean , Valerie Jarrett (aka the hatchet) will open her up for T Gowdy to take her down Oct 22nd.......... then Obama can move Uncle Joe in.

[Clocker]

If that server is wiped clean

Looks like more word games from the Clintons. The FBI has the server and it has been wiped clean. As I read this story, the Clintons gave the FBI the server that Hillary used while Secy of State. That server had been replaced in 2013, and it appears that whatever was on it at the time was transfered onto a new server. It is not clear where the new server is located or who did the transfer or if the old emails are still on it.

The FBI has taken possession of the personal e-mail server used by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state, according to a published report.

Barbara Wells, an attorney for Denver-based computer services firm Platte River Networks, told The Washington Post that federal agents picked up the server from a private data center in New Jersey Wednesday afternoon. The attorney told the paper that the server "was blank" and no longer contained useful information.

"The information had been migrated over to a different server for purposes of transition," Wells told the paper. "To my knowledge the data on the old server is not available now on any servers or devices in Platte River Network’s control." Wells added that the company had cooperated with the FBI and had been told it was not a target of the investigation.


The Post reported that Platte River Networks had been hired by former President Bill and Hillary Clinton to upgrade their private e-mail network in June 2013, after Hillary Clinton had left the State Department. As part of the job, the old server was taken from the basement of the Clintons' Chappaqua, N.Y. home and moved to the New Jersey data center.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/13/fbi-reportedly-takes-possession-blank-clinton-email-server/

[fast4522]

I think Edward Snowden and Dot Kim have something to say soon, I watched a video with Dot Kim saying something to that effect. on youtube.

[Robert Goren]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

[Tom]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

Not the point.
She lied and then destroyed evidence in a cover up.
We know she got a tremendous amount of money donated from foreign entities. And YOU whined because Romney legally deposited his money off shore. We KNOW she mishandled Top Secret material. A sailor recently was arrested and faces 20 years for taking a selfie with some battleship equipment in the background. Hillary is either grossly incompetent or lying and committing treason.

Kerry himself said his email were probably being read.
Duh. So why is he still using it?

[davew]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server? I think that anybody who really wanted to read State Dept. emails would be able to. I am sure places like Russia have no trouble getting them.

Is there any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony?

[FocusWiz]

Is there any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony?There may be room for the typical obfuscation of the issue by politicians (which is practiced especially well by the Clintons).

Most security policies govern the handling of this information by putting the onus on the sender not to send this information to a personal email account. In other words, if I work for a major corporation or for the government, I will likely be forbidden to forward secure information to my home email account and may need to get proper authorization to send such information to a vendor or a client.

In other words, the onus would not be on the recipient to avoid receiving this information, but on the sender to avoid sending it.

Thus, if confidential information were sent to Hillary's personal email account on her personal server, she could argue that it was the sender who violated policy and the law and that she, knowing that some individuals might erroneously send classified information to her personal email account, used extra security measures there to ensure that if that occurred, the data would be protected, and that the removal of this data was done to ensure that the data would no longer be available if the server's security was in any way compromised.

I am not saying that I agree with this "explanation" just that it seems to me the most likely way they would argue that she did nothing wrong.

[davew]

There may be room for the typical obfuscation of the issue by politicians (which is practiced especially well by the Clintons).

Most security policies govern the handling of this information by putting the onus on the sender not to send this information to a personal email account. In other words, if I work for a major corporation or for the government, I will likely be forbidden to forward secure information to my home email account and may need to get proper authorization to send such information to a vendor or a client.

In other words, the onus would not be on the recipient to avoid receiving this information, but on the sender to avoid sending it.

Thus, if confidential information were sent to Hillary's personal email account on her personal server, she could argue that it was the sender who violated policy and the law and that she, knowing that some individuals might erroneously send classified information to her personal email account, used extra security measures there to ensure that if that occurred, the data would be protected, and that the removal of this data was done to ensure that the data would no longer be available if the server's security was in any way compromised.

I am not saying that I agree with this "explanation" just that it seems to me the most likely way they would argue that she did nothing wrong.

and if she forwarded these to foreign people, companies and governments in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation then she would not be a spy committing treason?

what if the reason she got them is because one of her aides in the state department forwarded them to her from the state department?

[Tom]

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?

[FocusWiz]

and if she forwarded these to foreign people, companies and governments in exchange for donations to the Clinton foundation then she would not be a spy committing treason?

what if the reason she got them is because one of her aides in the state department forwarded them to her from the state department?I said nothing about her sending confidential information in my post.

I suspect that even sending classified information to other members of our own government from an unsecured server could be at least a breach of security if not a violation of the law. The specific question I was responding to was regarding whether or not there was any reason to believe that CIA documents sent to her with the designation TOP SECRET which was later removed by someone in the Clinton camp is not a felony. Receiving these things probably should have been reported immediately by Hillary but sending them to an external email address by the sender is the punishable crime in my opinion.

[FocusWiz]

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?I get emails from people all the time that I do not respond to. I am sure you do too.

When I worked for an organization that was highly concerned with data security, we had training sessions constantly regarding what to do if some colleague asked you to send information to their personal email address or some outsider asked for information on behalf of someone else.

The answer was always the same. We were never to send any email containing confidential information to an outside server unless the recipient of that email (i.e., the email address) was approved by the head of data security. The mere request had to be reported to data security. This often applied to internal email addresses too. There are pieces of information that are known by one part of the organization which are not to be shared outside of that group without proper authorization, no matter who asks for it. In fact, our servers were set up such that if it caught specific words in attachments or was unable to decrypt an attachment, those attachments would be removed from the email. Similarly, if certain words were caught in the body of the emails, those emails were also blocked. In these scenarios, reports of potential violations would be sent to your management and you would have to explain what was being sent and/or the context of the words used and you could potentially have the email released or possibly be released yourself.

Hillary could have asked me all she wanted, but unless I had a signed authorization to send her such information to her external email address from the head of data security, she would not get anything. However, if I got such approval, it would not just protect me from further action, but her as well. At that point, the person whose job would have been at stake would have been the head of data security.

That is how it works in large organizations like the government.

[delayjf]

Is there any reason to believe that the State Dept. servers were any more safe than Clinton's personal server?

I don't know about the State Dept. but the military has classified networks that classified material can be transmitted thru- called the SIPERNET. I would think the State Dept would have something simular.

[ebcorde]

There ain't no way in Hell this lady has all these "Scandals" all laughable. oh I read what they claim she did. so someone sent her an e-mail about a News story written about a drone... oh whoopee do. oh my my.

and no one cares about their dumb drone program!!!!!!! Everyone in the world knows the US will never resolve the middle east , except the US. The stupid Generals are on plan #1,001. And I have family in Afghanistan right now in upper management in MI. I don't receive any info. I'm just using my commonsense IT'S A LOST CAUSE.

But Let's go back to scandal #1 whitewater and her murder of Vince Foster. A Bunch of baloney than and now. People don't forget these accusations

[Clocker]

Why would anyone send them to her personal email unless SHE gave it to them?

There were no options. Hillary used only one personal email address (HDR22@clintonemail.com) for all of her official State Department business. All her emails came from that address. She did not have a State Department email address.

From the NY Times:

According to a report published by The New York Times Monday night, Hillary Clinton exclusively used personal email while acting as Secretary of State, a possible violation of federal record-keeping laws.

The newspaper says Clinton never had a government email address during the four years she served as head of the State Department and aides made no attempt to archive her emails as required by the Federal Records Act, behavior experts found troubling.



http://gawker.com/report-hillary-clinton-only-used-personal-email-as-sec-1689075741

[ebcorde]

the problem with this country the last 30 years are the idiots in congress. they're the problem.

to sum it up. A DAY LATE A DOLLAR SHORT on everything. democrats, republicans., tea party, they're 99% losers.

[zico20]

Just read that the State Department is not helping the investigation. Gee, I guess not. The article states that numerous State Department employees who knew about her using her personal account could be in trouble legally.

http://observer.com/2015/08/breaking-state-dept-tells-judge-its-doing-nothing-to-find-hillary-clintons-emails/

[Buckeye]

Hillary should have just been content getting 200K per speech and NOT run for President.

Only thing is, she could not help herself (greed) and now it is game on.

[fast4522]

Hillary should have just been content getting 200K per speech and NOT run for President.

Only thing is, she could not help herself (greed) and now it is game on.

Your saying the law of diminishing returns?

[Tom]

So I have to ask our left-leaning friends here....most of whom are absent a lot lately ( :lol: ).....

You all giggled and pointed fingers when Nixon lost 22 minutes tape recordings.

How doe that stack up 55,000 lost emails? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Buckeye]

A witch is a witch.

Not a President of these United States.

She says she's fighting for everyday Americans so maybe we're all witches.

[Buckeye]

Look, Trump is the only hope here, because he might not be a witch.

I say might not. because the American People agree with me.

And they are rarely if ever wrong.

[davew]

A witch is a witch.

Not a President of these United States.

She says she's fighting for everyday Americans so maybe we're all witches.

the Repubs are waging a war on witches - Hilary wants to be the first witch elected president.

[fast4522]

Look, Trump is the only hope here, because he might not be a witch.

I say might not. because the American People agree with me.

And they are rarely if ever wrong.

How about a frontal?

[Tom]

Hillary is out there shooting her mouth off against, the same old song, every time her family gets caught- a vast right wing conspircacy.

So she now takes the offensive.
But is that redundant? She has always been offensive? :lol:

If you ever need her, look to the western sky. :lol:

[Clocker]

Hillary is out there shooting her mouth off against, the same old song, every time her family gets caught- a vast right wing conspiracy.



That's why 2 Inspectors General appointed by Obama are calling for an investigation of her emails. :rolleyes:

Some have suggested that this would be a good time for another Bill Clinton bimbo eruption to take all the attention away from the emails and generate another wave of sympathy for Hillary while she stands by her man.

[woodtoo]

She even mocked about it at a fundraising speech the other day,saying

she now uses snapshot because it leaves no record.

Her humour knows no bounds. Of course the audience ate it up.

[Tom]

That's why 2 Inspectors General appointed by Obama are calling for an investigation of her emails. :rolleyes:

Some have suggested that this would be a good time for another Bill Clinton bimbo eruption to take all the attention away from the emails and generate another wave of sympathy for Hillary while she stands by her man.

Bill and Elisabeth Warren?
Multi-tasking here.

[ArlJim78]

We have no law in this country as long as the Clinton crime family continues to operate. They should both be serving long prison sentences for selling out the country for personal gain.

[davew]

I am not sure where she is getting her talking points

http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/feds-flag-60-clinton-emails-for-classified-data-report/


from the article->

Despite Hillary Clinton’s constant denials of sending government secrets through her personal email account, the State Department has already identified 60 emails containing classified data, ​according to a new report.

“I never sent classified material on my email and I never received any that was marked classified,” the presidential hopeful told a press gaggle at the fairgrounds. “The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified or send material marked classified,” she added.

There must be a big difference in classified data and classified material :D

[fast4522]

Nothing this woman says will ever have a majority of voters believing she is telling the truth, soon to get the fork out

[Clocker]

I am not sure where she is getting her talking points



Bill has a whole closet full of them, a life-time supply.

She is playing word games, like Bill quibbling about the meaning of "is".

First she said no classified material was ever sent or received on that server. Then it was no material classified as secret at the time. Then it was no material marked as classified.

What she is dodging is the fact that she could have sent or received emails discussing classified issues without actually sending documents marked as classified.

[OntheRail]

Did I do that....

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/12/hillary-clinton/Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

Gonna Blow....

https://obbop.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ugly-hillary-clinton.jpg

Just gotta find the Fat Hillary singing...

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/007access/HILLARY/FatLadySings.gif


Knew it was out there... :lol:

[reckless]

Did I do that....

http://cdn.breitbart.com/mediaserver/Breitbart/Big-Hollywood/2014/07/12/hillary-clinton/Hillary%20Clinton.jpg

Gonna Blow....

https://obbop.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/ugly-hillary-clinton.jpg

Just gotta find the Fat Hillary singing...

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c105/007access/HILLARY/FatLadySings.gif

Knew it was out there... :lol:

That's the face of the Democrat Party: Hillary, the Queen of Corruption.

And some here and in the media call Donald Trump a clown.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by davew
I am not sure where she is getting her talking points

Sames ones show used when Billy was boinking Monica. He was innocent, it was a vast right wing conspiracy.....yadda yadda yadda.

Lie and deny.

[fast4522]

That's why 2 Inspectors General appointed by Obama are calling for an investigation of her emails. :rolleyes:

Some have suggested that this would be a good time for another Bill Clinton bimbo eruption to take all the attention away from the emails and generate another wave of sympathy for Hillary while she stands by her man.

All of you folks are a tad naive, I think they have been putting the keys to the car into the bowl from the very beginning (swappers). While we knock Bill of having "all those women", I think she may have had her share as well with Bill having "permission".

[Tom]

Her share??? :lol::lol::lol:

[horses4courses]

Bush White House email controversy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

[Clocker]

Conservative hypocrisy in action


Who here said it was okay for the Bush people to do that?

What bearing does whatever happened in the Bush administration have on whether or not Hillary is a liar and not to be trusted?

[Tom]

And the rules in 2007 and 2014 were different.
And Hillary was told not use a personal account.

And where id Bush lie about using the email, and what top secret data did he compromise. Qnd what office did Rove hold at the time, or what office was he running for at the time.

Look, here is how it works. Just because there is an issue with Hillary lying about emails doesn't mean ANYthing with the word email in it is relates. What are you a search engine?

Horsey, get with the program here.
Try to stay relevant. Joe sound like little Joey - Wahhhhh! Look what Johnny did."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Poundsign Black Lives Matter now piling on too.

One of the activists takes issue with her comments. "This is and has always been a white problem of violence. There's not much that we [black people] can do to stop the violence against us," Julius Jones of Black Lives Matter tells Clinton.

Clinton pushes back: "Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will only talk to white people about the very real problems."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter_55d2ad41e4b055a6dab1453f?ncid=txtlnkusaolp0 0000592&kvcommref=mostpopular

[Clocker]

A new poll asked if Hillary knowingly lied about classified information on her server. Two percent said she told the truth, 58% said she knowingly lied, and 33% said there was some other explanation.

Broken out by party, 3% of Democrats said she told the truth, 27% said she knowingly lied, and 60% said there was some other explanation.

http://spectator.org/blog/63798/only-2-americans-think-hillary-clinton-told-truth-about-her-email

[Robert Goren]

Nobody but the hard right and the RINO network cares one iota about this. Whether mark Top Secret or not, our enemies as well as friends can get the emails anytime they want. By going away from the government servers, she lessen the chance than some gender confused private could access them and turn them over to some self appoint sex pervert whistle blower just because that private does not know the Clinton server exists. The more I think about it, the better the idea of using non government servers for secret emails become. There is at least a small chance that people we don't reading them won't get their hands on them. Using a government server virtually guarantees that they will be read by people we don't want reading them.

[thaskalos]

A new poll asked if Hillary knowingly lied about classified information on her server. Two percent said she told the truth, 58% said she knowingly lied, and 33% said there was some other explanation.

Broken out by party, 3% of Democrats said she told the truth, 27% said she knowingly lied, and 60% said there was some other explanation.

http://spectator.org/blog/63798/only-2-americans-think-hillary-clinton-told-truth-about-her-email
Isn't "lying" a prerequisite for the office of president of our country?

[Clocker]

Using a government server virtually guarantees that they will be read by people we don't want reading them.

Assuming that all confidential emails were either to or from someone else who was on a government server, that argument doesn't hold water. And Hillary using her own server just increases the options for a hacker or a mistake.

And the issue is much bigger than the security of the emails. The larger issue is that she violated the rules of her job because she considered herself to be above all of that, and then she lied about it, over and over. And she gets offended if anyone questions her about it. Hardly the character of a good leader.

[Clocker]

Isn't "lying" a prerequisite for the office of president of our country?

But the appearance of telling the truth is needed for election to that office.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Nobody but the hard right and the RINO network cares one iota about this. Whether mark Top Secret or not, our enemies as well as friends can get the emails anytime they want. By going away from the government servers, she lessen the chance than some gender confused private could access them and turn them over to some self appoint sex pervert whistle blower just because that private does not know the Clinton server exists. The more I think about it, the better the idea of using non government servers for secret emails become. There is at least a small chance that people we don't reading them won't get their hands on them. Using a government server virtually guarantees that they will be read by people we don't want reading them.

No who would care for a second that a self-appointed queen would circumvent the rules and laws for the peons to do whatever the hell she wants because they don't apply to her? Rule of law doesn't apply to the political elite. Must be a bunch of RINOs down there at the Justice Department. Your incredible IT expertise notwithstanding, there's a mildly larger picture here than whether or not gender benders and perverts prefer one server over another.

[Tom]

Nobody but the hard right and the RINO network cares one iota about this. Whether mark Top Secret or not, our enemies as well as friends can get the emails anytime they want. By going away from the government servers, she lessen the chance than some gender confused private could access them and turn them over to some self appoint sex pervert whistle blower just because that private does not know the Clinton server exists. The more I think about it, the better the idea of using non government servers for secret emails become. There is at least a small chance that people we don't reading them won't get their hands on them. Using a government server virtually guarantees that they will be read by people we don't want reading them.

What is the zip code for la la land?

[davew]

What is the zip code for la la land?

It is all over - the socialist democrats believe that breaking laws for their determined 'greater good' is justified

[ArlJim78]

Hillary's campaign thus far (https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B_eKByBU0AIVxvY.mp4)

[woodtoo]

Hillary's campaign thus far (https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B_eKByBU0AIVxvY.mp4)


That is Hillaryous :lol:

[lamboguy]

Hillary is either going to wind up on Pennsylvania Avenue or as a guest of the country in Danbury, Ct.

it can really go either way, pretty bazaar if you ask me.

[reckless]

I personally hope she survives this last act of criminality for the selfish reason that she is the absolute worst candidate of a very shallow and lame Democrat Party roster.

She is also the easiest candidate the GOP could beat next year, aside from Juan E. Bush, Jeb to you and me.

Hillary! You go, girl.

[delayjf]

I pray she gets indicted - convicted or not, that will certainly end her campaign.

[magwell]

The only way the Hag gets out of this mess, is if Obama calls off the dogs and that's a big price at best.......;)

[Tom]

Her story is so ridiculous, no one with a functional brain could defend her.

mostie tried, though.....:lol::lol::lol:

She is telling the truth in one thing - none of the emails were marked CLASSIFIED.

That is not one of the three special labels that are used, Secret, Top Secret, and I forget the third (Rick Perry moment!)

Her version of define "is."

[Clocker]

One of Hillary's flunkies said that she was the "passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified."