Forum Thread

Hillary Clinton's proposals, plans and where she stands

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 45 of 46 Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Spr Wrote:

    Just a flipin' and a flopin' with the Hill

    salon.com/2016/04/11/this_is_why_people...

    It'll catch up to them. Hmmmm,they been doin it for thousands of years ???
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes P.R. that is also the way I look at Hillary; what ever suits her to win. A real "lawyer type" with connections, as well an husband who can pull the strings in Washington. Thus the same "old".........
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Why Hillary and her supporters are despised by so many Democrats -

    truth-out.org/news/item/35623-she-s-bal...

    alternet.org/election-2016/majority-ame...

    salon.com/2016/04/14/hey_democrats_stop...

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    Why Hillary and her supporters are despised by so many Democrats -

    truth-out.org/news/item/35623-she-s-bal...

    alternet.org/election-2016/majority-ame...

    salon.com/2016/04/14/hey_democrats_stop...

    P.R. good pieces; especially the "salon" one is right on.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Once again Andrew O'Heir nails it.

    salon.com/2016/04/17/two_despised_front...

    The comments of this commentary are very illuminating and show there still is hope (although very little) for the American voting public.

    My prediction for this election is Hillary vs Lyin' Ryan with Hillary pulling out a narrow victory.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    Once again Andrew O'Heir nails it.

    salon.com/2016/04/17/two_despised_front...

    The comments of this commentary are very illuminating and show there still is hope (although very little) for the American voting public.

    My prediction for this election is Hillary vs Lyin' Ryan with Hillary pulling out a narrow victory.

    Yes P.R. again a good story; indeed this country is going down the sewer, with these candidates as well parties who lost all sense of reality.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Andrew O'Hehir tells only part of the story. It is writers on Salon and AlterNet like him that are all too ready to apply purity tests to every candidate. Hillary Clinton had a 66 percent approval rating in her last year as Secretary of State. Once she indicated her desire to run for President, the attack dogs on both the right and the left went after her. The Republicans rode the Benghazi horse for months until she testified for 11 hours. Then it was the e-mails.

    The left followed Bernie's lead and castigated her for accepting speaking fees from Wall Street firms. She could not be trusted. It was Us versus Them, and Bernie and Bernie supporters cast her as one of them...the enemy. I was appalled in attending our local caucus on March 1st to find that in intermingling with the young people in the crowd, the animosity towards Hillary was strong. She was the figure of the "establishment", and they have learned to hate the establishment. They are 100 percent Bernie and anyone else is "Them". Of course, this is not the true stereotype of all young voters, but it was evident to me in the passions of the young voters on March 1st.

    Bernie was pressed in the last debate if he was going to support any Democrats in 2016 like Hillary was doing. After a few weeks of criticism, he finally revealed that they had identified three candidates who they will help support. Just three! It is not surprising because I would expect that perhaps 90 percent of Democrats in Congress do not pass Bernie's purity tests on SuperPacs and accepting campaign contributions from employees of certain corporations and banks. He would be called a hypocrite for supporting anyone whose campaigns do not mimic his own...$27.00.

    It is also the writers in Salon and AlterNet that helped drive Barack Obama's ratings down to 41 percent in 2014. They castigated every one of his so called "missteps" which were compromises on budget deals. For both the left and the right, every compromise was derided. Obama was called evil. They didn't elect Obama to compromise on anything. They wanted a king...and all they got was an African-American president who could not smooch the Republicans into capitulating. He was a wuss...a major disappointment.

    President Obama and Hillary Clinton do not pass the purity tests. There is no room for them in the new political environment of the "Bernie Revolution" and the "Trump Revolution" where each side applies purity tests and compromise is seen as a four letter word. Overall experience is seen as a negative...only purity tests on votes on legislation counts.

    Writers like Andrew O'Hehir are part of the problem and not the solution.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Andrew O'Hehir tells only part of the story. It is writers on Salon and AlterNet like him that are all too ready to apply purity tests to every candidate. Hillary Clinton had a 66 percent approval rating in her last year as Secretary of State. Once she indicated her desire to run for President, the attack dogs on both the right and the left went after her. The Republicans rode the Benghazi horse for months until she testified for 11 hours. Then it was the e-mails.

    The left followed Bernie's lead and castigated her for accepting speaking fees from Wall Street firms. She could not be trusted. It was Us versus Them, and Bernie and Bernie supporters cast her as one of them...the enemy. I was appalled in attending our local caucus on March 1st to find that in intermingling with the young people in the crowd, the animosity towards Hillary was strong. She was the figure of the "establishment", and they have learned to hate the establishment. They are 100 percent Bernie and anyone else is "Them". Of course, this is not the true stereotype of all young voters, but it was evident to me in the passions of the young voters on March 1st.

    Bernie was pressed in the last debate if he was going to support any Democrats in 2016 like Hillary was doing. After a few weeks of criticism, he finally revealed that they had identified three candidates who they will help support. Just three! It is not surprising because I would expect that perhaps 90 percent of Democrats in Congress do not pass Bernie's purity tests on SuperPacs and accepting campaign contributions from employees of certain corporations and banks. He would be called a hypocrite for supporting anyone whose campaigns do not mimic his own...$27.00.

    It is also the writers in Salon and AlterNet that helped drive Barack Obama's ratings down to 41 percent in 2014. They castigated every one of his so called "missteps" which were compromises on budget deals. For both the left and the right, every compromise was derided. Obama was called evil. They didn't elect Obama to compromise on anything. They wanted a king...and all they got was an African-American president who could not smooch the Republicans into capitulating. He was a wuss...a major disappointment.

    President Obama and Hillary Clinton do not pass the purity tests. There is no room for them in the new political environment of the "Bernie Revolution" and the "Trump Revolution" where each side applies purity tests and compromise is seen as a four letter word. Overall experience is seen as a negative...only purity tests on votes on legislation counts.

    Writers like Andrew O'Hehir are part of the problem and not the solution.

    Sorry Schmidt, I don't agree. Clinton and her "gang" have indeed experience in fooling the people; neither does she have the "right" experience related to foreign policies as was proven on the last debate. " just "bomb" the place and run like hell to the next place we like to bomb; that is her policy. Just review that discussion, you will be shocked.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    If Hillary becomes President don't get sick!

    youtu.be/BG7w3Oey3xs

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pr Wrote:

    If Hillary becomes President don't get sick!

    youtu.be/BG7w3Oey3xs

    Talking about foreign policies; right now a huge issue is brewing about a "bill" to sue the Saudi Arabia government related to 9/11. If this is approved; then the Saudia government will certainly appreciate such with huge consequences. As you may know they are the main country which is fighting "rebels" in Yemen with the weapons we supplied. This will mean the mess in the middle east will only get bigger. Neither Hillary or Bernie were aware of this "bill" (they claim)

    Question; Don't we have more important things to do than "needling" the world?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Clintons Return White House Furniture

    • By ABC NEWS

    W A S H I N G T O N, Feb. 8

      • Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House.

      “We have been informed that it is being shipped back, and the National Park Service is ready to receive it, take possession of it and take custody of it,” Jim McDaniel, the National Park Service’s liaison to the White House, said Wednesday.

      “The property is being returned to government custody until such time that the issues can be resolved. It may well turn out that that property is rightly the personal property of the Clintons.”

      Giving Back

      After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

      Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

      McDaniel discussed the matter Wednesday with Betty Monkman, the White House curator, and Gary Walters, the chief usher, or executive manager of the White House.

      They were reviewing the gifts the Clintons chose to keep after $28,000 worth of items were found on a list of donations the Park Service received for the 1993 White House redecoration project. The Washington Post this week quoted three people who said that they assumed the furnishings they donated for the project would stay in the White House.

      “As a result of questions about the status of certain property donated to the White House during the Clinton administration, the National Park Service will accept the return of the property in question and act as a custodian of such property,” according to a statement released by the Park Service, which administers the White House as a unit of the national park system.

      A person familiar with the Clintons’ move out of the White House, who spoke on condition of anonymity, would say only: “They’ve been returned.”

      Furniture Movers

      While the Clintons’ decision to return these gifts was a way to get out from under this and other criticism surrounding their departure from the White House, the couple provided scant details about the shipment.

      Mrs. Clinton’s office referred all questions about the gift return to the former president’s transition office. Transition office workers said the Clintons would make no statement. They referred all questions to the Park Service, which wasn’t exactly sure which gifts were being returned or where they had been kept.

      In a statement released Monday, Clinton’s transition office said every item they accepted was identified by the White House gift office as a present to them. They said none of the gifts taken was on a curator’s list of official White House property.

      “Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher’s and curator’s offices,” the statement said. “Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred, ... any item in question will be returned.”

      Instead of waiting for the issue to be resolved, the Clintons returned the items.

      The gifts in question were: A kitchen table and four chairs valued at $3,650 from Lee Ficks of Cincinnati, Ohio; a $1,000 needlepoint rug from David Martinous of Little Rock, Ark.; two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman worth $19,900 from Steve Mittman of New York; lamps valued at $1,170 from Stuart Shiller of Hialeah, Fla.; and a $2,843 sofa from Brad Noe, a businessman from California.

      The gifts were just one of several flaps that followed the Clintons out of the White House:

      Lawmakers are questioning Clinton’s desire to rent expensive office space in New York City at government expense. Because of the contention, the former president’s foundation has offered to pay at least $300,000 of an estimated $790,000 annual rent for the office Clinton favors.

      Mrs. Clinton, the new senator from New York, has faced questions about the propriety of accepting the gifts in the period between her election and her swearing-in. Senate rules would have limited what she could accept had she been a senator.

      Members of both parties also have criticized Clinton for granting scores of eleventh-hour clemency requests, including the pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive in Switzerland from 51 counts in the United States of tax evasion and fraud.

      Yes, that is how it works; very sweet old people indeed.

    • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
          

      Another gorgeous picture for which I could not find a suitable thread:

    • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
          
      I thought HRC's question to Bernie Sanders asking him what he has done for the Democratic party encapsulates where she stands. She is more for the power of the Democratic party and not the American people. It is not American saying that Bernie Sanders supporters should not talk about their issues with Clinton as a candidate. These are not big revelations that the Republicans don't intend on using already. Should Bernie Sanders supporters just shut up and say nothing? Do you want a primary election or a party pandering contest? An election is about people supporting candidates who they feel best represent their ideals and not a pledge of allegiance to any political party.
    • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
          
      Schmidt Wrote:

      Andrew O'Hehir tells only part of the story. It is writers on Salon and AlterNet like him that are all too ready to apply purity tests to every candidate. Hillary Clinton had a 66 percent approval rating in her last year as Secretary of State. Once she indicated her desire to run for President, the attack dogs on both the right and the left went after her. The Republicans rode the Benghazi horse for months until she testified for 11 hours. Then it was the e-mails.

      The left followed Bernie's lead and castigated her for accepting speaking fees from Wall Street firms. She could not be trusted. It was Us versus Them, and Bernie and Bernie supporters cast her as one of them...the enemy. I was appalled in attending our local caucus on March 1st to find that in intermingling with the young people in the crowd, the animosity towards Hillary was strong. She was the figure of the "establishment", and they have learned to hate the establishment. They are 100 percent Bernie and anyone else is "Them". Of course, this is not the true stereotype of all young voters, but it was evident to me in the passions of the young voters on March 1st.

      Bernie was pressed in the last debate if he was going to support any Democrats in 2016 like Hillary was doing. After a few weeks of criticism, he finally revealed that they had identified three candidates who they will help support. Just three! It is not surprising because I would expect that perhaps 90 percent of Democrats in Congress do not pass Bernie's purity tests on SuperPacs and accepting campaign contributions from employees of certain corporations and banks. He would be called a hypocrite for supporting anyone whose campaigns do not mimic his own...$27.00.

      It is also the writers in Salon and AlterNet that helped drive Barack Obama's ratings down to 41 percent in 2014. They castigated every one of his so called "missteps" which were compromises on budget deals. For both the left and the right, every compromise was derided. Obama was called evil. They didn't elect Obama to compromise on anything. They wanted a king...and all they got was an African-American president who could not smooch the Republicans into capitulating. He was a wuss...a major disappointment.

      President Obama and Hillary Clinton do not pass the purity tests. There is no room for them in the new political environment of the "Bernie Revolution" and the "Trump Revolution" where each side applies purity tests and compromise is seen as a four letter word. Overall experience is seen as a negative...only purity tests on votes on legislation counts.

      Writers like Andrew O'Hehir are part of the problem and not the solution.

      Schmidt, Your critique of Bernie seems to be founded in a belief that the system is perfect for a lot of people and sufficient for the rest. I think the economy is not dependable and deteriorating. I present the National Debt as support. Bernie has proposed changes that if not in time to avert another crash would at least help a recovery with lasting benefits. Do you think the state of the economy is fine and best left alone?
    • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
          
      Chet Ruminski Wrote: Schmidt, Your critique of Bernie seems to be founded in a belief that the system is perfect for a lot of people and sufficient for the rest. I think the economy is not dependable and deteriorating. I present the National Debt as support. Bernie has proposed changes that if not in time to avert another crash would at least help a recovery with lasting benefits. Do you think the state of the economy is fine and best left alone?

      I didn't read it that way at all.

      We have the strongest economy in the world and then some. For a country our size, the standard of living for the average citizen is above and beyond the standard of living for countries of a similar size. Indonesia and Brazil have populations comparable to the United States. You would have a hard time proving that the average Brazilian or Indonesian has a better standard of living than the average American does in the United States.

      China and India have massive populations and only a small fraction of their citizens have the standard of living the average American has.

      America still has the strongest currency in the world. You don't see investors rushing to the Yuan or Euro; you see them consistently investing in the dollar. The current exchange rate between the Yuan and the Dollar is 1:0.15. That means one Yuan is equal to fifteen cents. I'd hardly call that a strong currency.

      America has a lot of debt, but we also have a lot of capital. The GDP in America is far more than any other country in the world. The only country that even comes close is China and they are seven trillion dollars behind us. The EU does come close, but they are a conglomerate of individual countries and not a single entity.