Reply With Quote
Bingo. I said that a long time ago.
AP-Gfk Poll: Americans Have 55 Percent Negative Opinion of Hillary Clinton, Poll Says
The poll found 55 percent of American had either a "somewhat" or "very" unfavorable impression of the Democratic presidential candidate.
Donald Trump drew a 69 percent unfavorable rating.
Bingo. I said that a long time ago.
The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.
The Clinton camp really doesn’t like talking about fossil-fuel money. Last week, when a young Greenpeace campaigner challenged Hillary Clinton about taking money from fossil-fuel companies, the candidate accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of “lying” and declared herself “so sick” of it. As the exchange went viral, a succession of high-powered Clinton supporters pronounced that there was nothing to see here and that everyone should move along.
First, some facts. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, including her Super PAC, has received a lot of money from the employees and registered lobbyists of fossil-fuel companies. There’s the much-cited $4.5 million that Greenpeace calculated, which includes bundling by lobbyists.
But that’s not all. There is also a lot more money from sources not included in those calculations. For instance, one of Clinton’s most prominent and active financial backers is Warren Buffett. While he owns a large mix of assets, Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.
Then there’s all the cash that fossil-fuel companies have directly pumped into the Clinton Foundation. In recent years, Exxon, S , ConocoPhillips, and Chevron have all contributed to the foundation. An investigation in theInternational Business Times just revealed that at least two of these oil companies were part of an effort to lobby Clinton’s State Department about the Alberta tar sands, a massive deposit of extra-dirty oil. Leading climate scientists like James Hansen have explained that if we don’t keep the vast majority of that carbon in the ground, we will unleash catastrophic levels of warming.
During this period, the investigation found, Clinton’s State Department approved the Alberta Clipper, a controversial pipeline carrying large amounts of tar-sands bitumen from Alberta to Wisconsin. “According to federal lobbying records reviewed by the IBT,” write David Sirota and Ned Resnikoff, “Chevron and ConocoPhillips both lobbied the State Department specifically on the issue of ‘oil sands’ in the immediate months prior to the department’s approval, as did a trade association funded by ExxonMobil.”
there is no proof that the money her campaign took from gas lobbyists and fracking financiers has shaped Clinton’s current (and dangerous) view that fracking can be made safe.
It’s important to recognize that Clinton’s campaign platform includes some very good climate policies that surely do not please these donors—which is why the fossil-fuel sector gives so much more to climate change–denying Republicans.
While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all.
The problem with Clinton World is structural. It’s the way in which these profoundly enmeshed relationships—lubricated by the exchange of money, favors, status, and media attention—shape what gets proposed as policy in the first place.
In Clinton World it’s always win-win-win: The governments look effective, the corporations look righteous, and the celebrities look serious. Oh, and another win too: The Clintons grow ever more powerful.
At the center of it all is the canonical belief that change comes not by confronting the wealthy and powerful but by partnering with them. Viewed from within the logic of what Thomas Frank recently termed “the land of money,” all of Hillary Clinton’s most controversial actions make sense. Why not take money from fossil-fuel lobbyists? Why not get paid hundreds of thousands for speeches to Goldman Sachs? It’s not a conflict of interest; it’s a mutually beneficial partnership—part of a never-ending merry-go-round of corporate-political give and take.
Sanders and his supporters understand something critical: It won’t all be win-win. For any of this to happen, fossil-fuel companies, which have made obscene profits for many decades, will have to start losing.
And losing more than just the tax breaks and subsidies that Clinton is promising to cut. They will also have to lose the new drilling and mining leases they want; they’ll have to be denied permits for the pipelines and export terminals they very much want to build. They will have to leave trillions of dollars’ worth of proven fossil-fuel reserves in the ground.
http://www.thenation.com/article/the...ate-worldview/
Republicans are whack. That's no excuse to vote for Hillary.Not just Akin, sn]....
Sh**'s tight. The fix is in, though.
So you are saying she's the only person on earth above the law? That's a stretch.
Guilty is guilty and everyone pays.
She would have already been convicted if the system wasn't working for her. The fact that the interview hadn't interviewed her and said it wasn't a "criminal investigation" should tell you what you need to know. The fact that she had a secret meeting with the FBI head should reinforce that reality.
I'm not defending the . I'm telling you 's up.
Benghazi panel to issue election-year report
Last week, the House Republicans’ Benghazi committee passed the 700-day mark – the panel has gone on longer than the investigations into 9/11, Watergate, the JFK assassination – and no one can say with confidence when the partisan endeavor will wrap up.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who’s led the partisan probe, told Fox News last year that he hoped to finish the work “before 2016,” and as far as he was concerned, the committee’s report wouldn’t “come out in the middle of 2016.” And yet, here we are.
The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank noted today that the trajectory of this story is “about to change.”
Gowdy, after blowing through several previous deadlines he set, has said to expect a final report “before summer,” and Republicans say they are drafting it now. In another indication that the rollout is approaching, Gowdy last month stopped giving Democrats transcripts of witness interviews. This move, ostensibly to prevent leaks, diminishes the minority’s ability respond to allegations contained in the majority report.
Depending on how long the declassification review takes, the Benghazi report is on track to drop by mid-July, just before Congress recesses for the conventions and at a time when Republicans will be in need of a distraction from the Trump-Cruz standoff. If the review takes longer (they typically last from a few weeks to a several months), it could come out in September, in the campaign’s homestretch.
In case it’s not obvious, let’s note for the record that the Republican report is likely to take aim at one person in particular – and she just so happens to be favored to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
The challenge for the GOP is trying to convince anyone – aside from conspiracy theorists, conservative media outlets, and Hillary Clinton’s Republican critics – that their report, once it’s available, deserves to be seen as a credible assessment of a deadly terrorist attack.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Confederate ASSHOLE Gowdy will obviously try to trash Hillary out of the running.
That was certainly the Repug strategy before the Repugs totally lost control of their own party.
Now, no matter who the Repugs nominate, the Dems will win, no matter who the Dems nominate.
That's why the billionaires have abandoned the Repug Pres race to move their $Bs down ticket to corrupt the Congressional, state, and local elections.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-15-2016 at 09:08 AM.
I have no idea how anybody can stand behind this snake
She is so bad it has me rethinking Bill's legacy. Was Bill largely just a beneficiary of the economic times?
Poor old Burn.
I have no idea how anybody can stand behind this snake
He stands there gasping for air trying to call for help and the lifeguard never budged.
Damn, Hillary just bleeds cynicism and deceit. How about a Bernie/Kasich ticket... I mean if you have to actually stomach the people you vote for... I swear to God, I win a contest to have dinner with Cruz, Trump, Hillary... I could not make it through the meal.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zDWU2SR27g4
Feel like Kramer in the above.
How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti
Much of the blame for Haiti’s chaotic political scene can be pinned on Hillary Clinton’s State Department, whose handpicked president has only made things worse.
At the time, Martelly proclaimed that the Caracol project would deliver more than 100,000 jobs, while the Clinton Foundation vowed that it would bring 60,000 in five years. As of mid-2015, the actual number was closer to 5,000.
Throughout his five-year term, Martelly gave free rein to NGOs and foreign business interests. Amidst Haiti’s ongoing turmoil, a simple question thus arises: Why, exactly, did Hillary Clinton’s State Department support Sweet Micky instead of Dr. Mirlande Manigat?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...uin-haiti.html
High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
In their post-2000 lives as global citizens, Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton have been tied to no country more closely than Haiti. As a United Nations special envoy, Mr. Clinton helped raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the country after its devastating 2010 earthquake. Mrs. Clinton traveled there four times as secretary of state and shepherded billions of dollars in American aid.
They often speak fondly of Haiti, one of the first places they visited as newlyweds in 1975.
But as she seeks the world’s most powerful job and Haiti plunges into another political abyss, a loud segment of Haitians and Haitian-Americans is speaking of the Clintons with the same contempt they reserve for some of their past leaders.
In widely read blogs, ..., the Clintons have become prime targets of blame for the country’s woes.
Among the litany of complaints being laid at their feet: Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent.
Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures on the island, setting off speculation about insider deals.
Tony Jeanthenor, 55, a member of the Miami-based Haitian human rights group Veye-Yo as well as Lavalas Family, a Haitian political party, said he was voting for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont because of the senator’s distaste for involvement in other countries’ affairs.
“Nothing good for Haiti can come out of Hillary because of her past behavior,” Mr. Jeanthenor said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us...ton-haiti.html
Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti
Clinton is on record saying deporting children would send a “responsible message” to families to deter them from coming into the United States. But when it comes to Honduras, Sanders as well as the moderators missed a key opportunity to bring up Clinton’s record in Central America and the Caribbean, and specifically how her State Department’s role in undemocratic regime changes has contributed to violence and political instability in Honduras and Haiti today.
Instead of condemning the figures behind the uprising, suspending support to the illegitimate government of Zelaya’s successor, Roberto Micheletti, and demanding a restoration of the democratically elected Zelaya, Secretary Clinton decided to move on.
Clinton’s camp has said that allegations about her role in the 2009 coup are “nonsense.”
What about Clinton’s record in Haiti?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ras-and-haiti/
With "experiences" like Hillary's, Bernie must be happy to be without
Hillary Clinton's Favorability Rating Among Democrats Hit a New Low
According to the HuffPost Pollster average, 55 percent of the electorate now views Clinton unfavorably—and 40.2 percent of people view her favorably,
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...ts-hit-new-low
Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.
The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?
Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers:
(a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major ins utional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or
(b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.
Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).
Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the ins utions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:
1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)
“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”
[link]
2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)
“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”
[link]
3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)
“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”
[link]
4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)
“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”
[link]
5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal
“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”
[link]
6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)
“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”
[link]
7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico
“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”
[link]
Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?
Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?
Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again:
Buzzfeed has confirmed that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did nothold the rights, no ins ution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a...b_9698632.html
The speeches would seem to be Hillary's "47%"
And remember that Bishop Gekko REFUSED to release his tax returns for earlier than the 3 preceding years. Earlier than that probably included tax evasion/IRS amnesty.
Booboo needs to tone down his Hillary talk since he's gna be pimping her during the generals
On the other hand it's good that this comes out now rather than in the Generals, although, the GOP always has the emails, the IRS and Bengazi.....I wonder if they'll pull out some widows....that would be low....
Well, not so fast......seen this?
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/the_...sanders_skeptiThe equation for a Hillary defeat is adding up: Her FBI probe plus Bernie’s huge gains in national polls should wake up Sanders skeptics
Bernie Sanders is almost tied nationally and ahead of Clinton in three Democratic primary polls
H. A. GOODMAN
You Lie
G F Y
you're full of bull . Repugs witch hunting the Clintons for 25 years with transparentlhy trumped up charges, slander, anything they can imagine, is not the same as the Clintons ing up on their own.
Boutons is a chamaleon.
you went from...
to actually talking about her getting indicted over emails
The key difference being that the Benghazi thing was bull and had no foundation from the get-go. I'm still waiting to hear about what she (or anyone else) did wrong. The emails might be insignificant but she's already lied about them multiple times and there's actually a possibility of wrongdoing.you went from...
to actually talking about her getting indicted over emails
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
