The 2016 march to the White House

Post by **telcoman** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:39 pm

Bubba1 wrote:
themadscientist wrote:Because they are too arrogant to figure out why they lost to a guy with no record to stand on, twice.
Yep ^

Not hard to figure out.

The ACA was front and center and the American Voters responded and reelected Obama.
Who can forget Mitt Romneys refusal to release 10 years of his tax returns.
Jeb Bush took notice and just released 33 years of his.
Can hardly wait for the Republican debates to begin. Trump and Christie are going to make it a fun debate.

And for those who continue to attack Hillary, be careful what you wish for because Bernie Sanders is drawing huge crowds

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:01 pm

Today, there is a progressive wave throughout the Democratic Party and national politics, which is why Hillary Clinton is wisely staking out progressive positions and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is the surprise early star of the 2016 campaign. Yet Obama continues to periodically lapse into ridicule and derision of liberals and labor, as he did during the recent trade debate.

The word out of the White House is that the president believes he is “liberated” because he does not have to run again. This is superficially true but fundamentally false. Obama may not be running again, but in 2016, a Democratic nominee for president, Democratic candidates for the House and Senate, and Democratic candidates for statewide office will indeed be running.

It was political malpractice for Obama to have spent a month dishing personal and political insults against prominent liberal Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), organized labor and liberals across America during the trade debate. He falsely claimed they don’t know as much about trade as he does. He slandered Democratic opponents of the trade bill by falsely claiming they were not sincerely interested in standing up for working men and women, and were merely playing politics.

The president’s defamation of Democrats over trade was untrue, shameful and destructive to the Democratic Party. Most Democrats inside and outside Washington are genuinely worried — with good reason, rooted in the history of trade agreements — about the potential loss of American jobs.

This pattern of Obama and his aides insulting liberals began well before the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections, with repeated background quotes in mainstream media from unnamed White House personnel referring to leaders and members of the Democratic base as “the left of the left” and “the professional left.”

Here is the scoreboard of the political legacy that Obama may leave his party:

When Obama assumed office, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. That majority was destroyed and a Republican House was elected on Obama’s watch.

When Obama assumed office, Democrats controlled the Senate. That majority was destroyed and a Republican Senate was elected on Obama’s watch.

When Obama assumed office, Democrats controlled a majority of governorships. The majority was destroyed, and Republicans took a majority of governorships on Obama’s watch, which led to the reapportionment after the 2010 Census that was catastrophic for House Democrats.

Given this legacy of damage that Obama has inflicted against his party and his presidency, by depressing liberal Democratic voters and motivating conservative Republican voters in two midterm elections that were disastrous for Democrats, it was breathtaking that throughout the recent trade debate Obama demonstrated he still has not learned that the leader of a great party must not insult its core voters if it has any hopes of prevailing in future presidential and congressional elections.

The trade debate has only begun, and other issues will emerge in force. Obama must end his habit of berating liberal and labor Democrats — once and for all — or it will be Republicans singing “Amazing Grace” on the morning after the 2016 elections.

That was from Brent Budowsky. He was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics.

Post by **telcoman** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:13 pm

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/19/paul_kr ... xperiment/

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 8:31 am

DOJ asked to probe handling of Clinton's emails: NYT http://news.yahoo.com/justice-departmen ... 08244.html#
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is weighing a request by two government inspectors general to open a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information in Hillary Clinton's private emails from when she was secretary of state, according to a report in the New York Times.

What’s going on with Mr. O’Malley’s money? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html
...striking a deal with a tech company that benefited from a sizeable no-bid state contract when he was governor — and which then paid him nearly $148,000 for speeches and consulting in the months after he left office in January.

What’s concerning is how he pivoted almost immediately on leaving office to accepting a large income from a firm whose ongoing business with the state was sustained in no small part because of Mr. O’Malley’s influence. Notwithstanding the governor’s sincere interest in the subject matter, there’s the appearance of a payback.

Post by **telcoman** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:56 am

Who cares!

The voters who hate Hillary and the Clinton's in general and have been futile in their investigations over the past twenty-five years will never vote for her.
There are however, millions more that will vote for her if she is the democratic nominee and don't care about her email server or Benghazi.

The facts are that she is the most experienced American fully qualified as a former First Lady, NY Senator and despite what Trump says an excellent Secretary of State to be the next POTUS.

Telcoman

Post by **szh** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:30 am

telcoman wrote:There are however, millions more that will vote for her if she is the democratic nominee

And right there is the reason for the stupid politicians in this country (and probably everywhere else too). People who vote the party line without exercising their brains are the cause of our inept political leadership.

Although I am a Republican registered voter, I will not vote randomly for the Republican candidate for a position - I do my homework to try and find the best candidate whenever I vote. Including local and state elections.

And, fwiw, yeah ... if (and I truly hope this does not happen!) my final choice is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump next year, then I will vote - reluctantly - for her. For obvious reasons.

Of course, in the electoral college system, it doesn't matter - California is not likely to be a Republican win.

Z

Post by **telcoman** » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:35 am

There is not one republican with any common sense worth voting for

Remember their job one was to make Obama a one term president.

They all suck

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... _fb_maddow

Telcoman

Post by **R/T Hemi** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 11:51 am

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 1:52 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^
Hillary likes this!

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/h ... /57836.htm

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:50 pm

Matthews Dumbfounds DNC Chair: 'Tell Me the Difference Between You and a Socialist'

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was at a loss for words Thursday night after MSNBC’s Chris Matthews pressed her on the differences between Democrats and socialists.

Post by **telcoman** » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:00 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Listen to Bernie Sanders.

He is not afraid to clearly state what the Dems will not

He clearly explains the difference.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... inequality

At a rally to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Medicare on Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced that he will soon introduce legislation to provide Medicare-for-all single-payer health insurance. On Wednesday, Sanders criticized Republicans’ push for a vote on legislation to cut $500 million in annual funding for Planned Parenthood, calling it “part of a long-term smear campaign by people who want to deny women in this country the right to control their own bodies.” Last Sunday on Meet the Press, Sanders, in response to the fatal shooting in a Louisiana movie theater, called for stricter gun control measures including universal instant background checks and restrictions on firearms not used for hunting.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

WASHINGTON, June 25 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation to increase estate tax rates on the top three-tenths of one percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million, while eliminating loopholes that have allowed the wealthiest Americans to avoid billions in taxes. Sanders said the legislation was needed to reduce the massive gap between the very rich and working class Americans.

“Our nation cannot survive morally or economically when so few have so much while so many have so little. We need a tax system which asks the billionaire class to pay its fair share of taxes and which reduces the obscene degree of wealth inequality in America,” Sanders said.

Only the very wealthiest millionaires and billionaires would be effected by the Sanders plan; 99.75 percent of Americans would not pay a penny more in estate taxes.

Sanders’ bill does the following:

Lowers the estate tax exemption level from $5.4 million to $3.5 million for individuals and from about $11 million to $7 million for couples.
Increases the marginal tax rate to 45 percent on estates between $3.5 million to $10 million, 50 percent on estates between $10 million and $50 million, and 55 percent on estates over $50 million.
Creates a new billionaire surtax of 10 percent that would only impact 530 billionaires who are worth a combined $2.6 trillion.
Ends loopholes allowing billionaire families to set up dynasty trusts to avoid taxes.
Closes loopholes used by the wealthy to avoid estate taxes.
Protects family farms and conservation easements.

Hope this helps you.

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Tue Aug 18, 2015 5:21 pm

FBI probe of Clinton's server could show other email accounts, security levels and even HACKER intrusions
Watergate sleuth Bob Woodward said Monday that the deleted Clinton emails reminded him of the long erasures on President Richard Nixon's tape-recorded Oval Office conversations

FBI probe of Clinton's server could show other email accounts, security levels and even HACKER intrusions

As feds dig deep into the computer hardware that once hosted the former secretary of state's emails, more than just the messages could turn up
Modern forensic tools could help determine if anyone tried to hack into the server while it was housed in Hillary Clinton's unsecured house
Even data thought to be erased could turn up and point investigators toward other email accounts that no one yet knows about
Because the server was put in place seven years ago, its old-technology hard drives aren't as good as newer machines at erasing things

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3jDPtpMGr

Post by **telcoman** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:59 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hello Bernie Sanders!

Can you hear me now?

Stay tuned.

You may be called upon if Hillary fails to obtain the democratic nomination.

Single payer healthcare/and or Medicare for all may actually become doable after all if Hillary is knocked out by the right.

Telcoman.

Post by **szh** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:40 pm

telcoman wrote:Hello Bernie Sanders!

Can you hear me now?

Stay tuned.

You may be called upon if Hillary fails to obtain the democratic nomination.

Hmmm, looks like you have changed your allegiance?

This is what you said back in April:

telcoman wrote:Voters will be getting a two for one deal when they elect Hillary
What a great deal for Americans and this country

Z

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Aug 22, 2015 4:21 am

Not really!

If Hillary obtains the democratic nomination She's got my vote.

If by chance Bernie or another Dem obtains the nomination they'll also get my vote.

There is no qualified republican including The Donald ready to become POTUS in my opinion.

Telcoman

Post by **szh** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:54 pm

So you would vote strictly party line rather than for the best qualified candidate? Regardless of which party a highly qualified candidate may come from?

How about looking at some other incredibly qualified people (regardless of party) for a change? Like Ted Cruz?

While I do not endorse him, by the way - and also disagree with some of his positions - I am very impressed by his educational and experienced qualifications. He is head and shoulders above any of the Dem candidates now, or in the recent past ...

Take a look at only a few of his accomplishments - prior to becoming a Senator (where he has shown an admirable voting record):

1. Graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Public Policy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992.

2. After Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor degree. While at Harvard Law, he was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review. Referring to Cruz's time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant." At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.[

3. Served as a law clerk to J. Michael Luttig of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995 and William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the United States in 1996. Cruz was the first Hispanic to clerk for a Chief Justice of the United States.

4. Served as an associate deputy attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department and as the director of policy planning at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

5. Authored 70 United States Supreme Court briefs and presented 43 oral arguments, including nine before the United States Supreme Court. Cruz's record of having argued before the Supreme Court nine times is more than any practicing lawyer in Texas or any current member of Congress. Cruz has commented on his nine cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court: "We ended up year after year arguing some of the biggest cases in the country. There was a degree of serendipity in that, but there was also a concerted effort to seek out and lead conservative fights."

Yeah, I don't like some of his extra-conservative positions and hence will probably not vote him (I am more centrist than conservative), but that is one hell of a qualified candidate - more than the intellectual capacity than President Barack Obama had when he was running for office!

And certainly more qualified than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders put together ... just to name the lead Dem candidates. And more than Donald Trump and Jeb Bush ... just to name the lead Republican candidates.

The field of candidates is strange this year for sure!

Z

Post by **Bubba1** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:37 am

I agree, I don't recall such weird group of candidates...well, since the last election.

Post by **telcoman** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:09 pm

Bubba1 wrote:I agree, I don't recall such weird group of candidates...well, since the last election.

It is only a weird group of republicans

As for Ted Cruz, I find it hard to understand how a man with a Princeton University education can be such an a##hole?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

"Cruz worked on matters relating to the National Rifle Association, and helped prepare testimony for the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton"

One of our better presidents that could most likely be reelected if he chose to run!

"Cruz is cited in the press as having been a major force behind the U.S. government shutdown in 2013.[146][147] Cruz delivered a message on October 11, 2013 to fellow Republicans against accepting Obamacare and, describing it as a "train wreck", claimed the American people remain "energized" around the goal of gutting the law.[148] Cruz stated Obamacare is causing "enormous harm" to the economy"

I agree with nothing that he supports and he will never be elected POTUS in my opinion

Telcoman

Post by **szh** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:06 pm

Bubba1 wrote:I agree, I don't recall such weird group of candidates...well, since the last election.

Yes, indeed!

Z

Post by **szh** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:19 pm

telcoman wrote:One of our better presidents that could most likely be reelected if he chose to run!

Nope! I completely disagree inre Bill Clinton's electability.

FWIW, the last Democrat President I had respect for was Jimmy Carter.

For one simple reason alone: during his term, he took a stance against totalitarian governments around the world - denying them aid if they didn't reform their miserable human rights problems. And this helped bring about real change (unlike the fake promises from our current POTUS) in countries around the world that had serious problems with mistreatment of their citizens.

And, he was honest ...

Unlike Bill Clinton. I watched his entire testimony, the way he said "that woman", and that nothing had happened with Monica Lewinsky. I remember turning to my wife and saying that it was impossible that he would lie and therefore I believed him ... she smirked and said I would be proven wrong.

And I was!

The act itself was meaningless (yes, he misused his position and authority with an intern and that was not good). It was the complete out-and-out lying about it that makes me say that his legacy will forever be tarnished ... period. End of story.

So ... electable? Simply not possible - too many people would be in the streets about it (myself included) - complete

in that regard.

Z

Post by **szh** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 6:22 pm

telcoman wrote:As for Ted Cruz, I find it hard to understand how a man with a Princeton University education can be such an a##hole?

That is your opinion, of course, because you choose to not agree with his positions. Unlike others, of course.

And, yes, I disagree with some of them too (so will not be likely to vote for him), but I would not call him names like you just did - I respect his sheer intelligence (way above mine or yours!) too much for that.

Z

Post by **szh** » Tue Aug 25, 2015 9:42 pm

telcoman wrote:If Hillary obtains the democratic nomination She's got my vote.

If by chance Bernie or another Dem obtains the nomination they'll also get my vote.

But ... but ... you also said this in March:

telcoman wrote:Out of over 300 million Americans only one is fit to serve as POTUS

Hillary in 2016

Clearly, you emphatically declared that the only American fit to serve as POTUS in 2016 is Hillary!

Therefore, if anybody else is nominated, shouldn't you not vote for them?

Why would you vote for anybody who is not fit to serve as POTUS?

Z

Post by **szh** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:02 am

Telcoman, your favorite source is saying this: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/hi ... tment.html

"Three emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2011 when she was secretary of state contained information that should have been considered “secret,” the government’s second-highest classification, according to a State Department review ..."

"Dozens of emails Mrs. Clinton sent and received were not classified at the time they were sent, but have now been made “confidential.” One other email, made public in May, has been reclassified as secret. The inspector general for the intelligence community said in August that two other emails were “top secret,” although the State Department has contested that classification."

Hmmm ...

Z

Post by **telcoman** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 4:33 am

szh wrote:Telcoman, your favorite source is saying this: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/hi ... tment.html

"Three emails sent to Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2011 when she was secretary of state contained information that should have been considered “secret,” the government’s second-highest classification, according to a State Department review ..."

"Dozens of emails Mrs. Clinton sent and received were not classified at the time they were sent, but have now been made “confidential.” One other email, made public in May, has been reclassified as secret. The inspector general for the intelligence community said in August that two other emails were “top secret,” although the State Department has contested that classification."

Hmmm ...

Z

Most of those that voted for Romney in the last election most likely will not vote for Hillary in 2016. Many of those that voted for Obama including me really don't give a f*** about her emails. She is a very experience politician and did what many others did in regards to emails. Many of the government computer systems are old, outdated, and vulnerable mostly because republicans refuse to authorize the spending necessary for replacements or upgrades.

You are missing the bigger picture of another Doofus republican about to be named the next speaker of the house

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-fear-ho ... RzZWMDc2M-

The American people were not fooled in the last presidential election by the BS coming from the right wingnuts and won't be fooled again even with Donald Trump making complete fools out of the other republicans still left.

Don't be too hasty in writing off Hillary

She is still the most qualified despite the right trying desperately to find something to stick and wasting taxpayer money.
A republican do nothing party is becoming more and more well known by voters with every passing day.

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 7:01 am

You are missing the bigger picture of another Doofus republican about to be named the next speaker of the house

Once you switch focus to deflect people away from the issue at hand, you've lost the discussion.

...and did what many others did in regards to emails.

That's not quite true. She is the first Secretary of State in US history to exclusively use a private e-mail address and server while on the job. Hillary Clinton’s email servers were maintained by a mom-and-pop outfit — run out of an old bathroom closet in a downtown Denver loft. Are you seriously going to insinuate that was how it was done by previous Secretaries of State???

You can try to dismiss the email scandal as a non-issue but, "fifty-six percent of those polled in a CNN/ORC survey said that Clinton did something wrong by using a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state. Slightly more than six in 10 Democrats (63 percent) believe Clinton did nothing wrong — that's down from 71 percent in March — while slightly more than one in three independents (37 percent) say the same".

"Clinton's various explanations of her email system have been undermined by new revelations in the case. That has led to new questions, and then to new explanations, and, most likely, new revelations as the investigation moves forward. The process has been so damaging that Clinton's aides are virtually begging for everyone to just stop talking about it."

It's not just the unsecured email server that's causing concern. In August it was reveled that Hillary was not issued a secure government smartphone during her tenure as secretary of state. On Monday we learned a top Hillary Clinton aide sent classified information about a foreign government to a Clinton Foundation employee. And yesterday we found out that Russia-linked hackers tried at least five times to pry into Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email account while she was secretary of state.

Trying to cast the whole thing as normal and everyday just shows how out of touch with reality Hillary and her sycophant followers really are. Her sarcastic and dismissive attitude is not winning over doubters, and her polling numbers have tanked, leaving her once assured coronation in doubt.

Hillary Clinton is her own worst enemy. Most people assume that anything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. It's just that unlike Bill, she hasn't learned the old adage that says "If you're going to lie, at least lie convincingly."

Post by **szh** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:38 pm

telcoman wrote:Many of the government computer systems are old, outdated, and vulnerable mostly because republicans refuse to authorize the spending necessary for replacements or upgrades.

Really? What is your evidence for either of the points you attempt to make above?

telcoman wrote:You are missing the bigger picture of another Doofus republican about to be named the next speaker of the house

What does that have to do with the purpose of this thread?

telcoman wrote:Don't be too hasty in writing off Hillary

Hmmm ... even the Democratic party leaders appear to be thinking she needs to be written off. See the other thread for the NY Times report that Hillary is trying to undermine any effort by Biden to enter the race.

Z

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:55 pm

Rogue One wrote:Once you switch focus to deflect people away from the issue at hand, you've lost the discussion."

There is no switched focus

The thread is titled the 2016 March to the White House and there is presently only one qualified candidate to be POTUS and that is Hillary Clinton.

Hillary's march to the white house is presently subject to a republican hit job masquerading as an investigation into Benghazi which after spending millions of taxpayer dollars by republicans has found nothing
IRS investigation Nothing! No one cares
Now the republicans are focused on emails and have nothing.
The republicans have been investigation the Clinton's for over 25 years.
Whitewater Nothing
Sex with Monica No one cares Bill could probably win election again
President Obama Elected president twice despite the republican goals of making him a one term president
Reverend Wright No one cares Obama wins election
Bill Ayres No one cares Obama wins election

Republicans are unable to govern nor compromise.

They only want to prevent people from voting

Pennsylvania Voting restrictions

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... bate/?_r=0

That didn't work so well

Mitt Romney’s 47% Remarks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 70600.html

“But Romney told Balz that the focus of his remarks was on swing voters, not on those who were already in President Barack Obama's camp. "t was saying, 'Look, the Democrats have 47 percent, we've got 45 percent, my job is to get the people in the middle, and I've got to get the people in the middle,'" he said. "They’ve got a bloc of voters, we've got a bloc of voters, I've got to get the ones in the middle. And I thought that that would be how it would be perceived -- as a candidate talking about the process of focusing on the people in the middle who can either vote Republican or Democrat."
Romney's argument that the remarks were taken out of context is a new defense for him. During the campaign, he said at first that they were "not elegantly stated" and then that they were "completely wrong."

Those remarks most likely cost Romney the last election

And now we have another republican who just put his foot in his mouth

Kevin McCarthy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... miserably/

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?” McCarthy said on Fox News. “But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/ ... index.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_2 ... hful-gaffe

The only republican accomplishments that I can recall during my lifetime are The Interstate Highway System signed by president Dwight Eisenhower and the unpaid for Medicare Part D drug program signed into law by President George Bush that failed to negotiate drug prices as part of the plan and caused a huge debt increase.

Republicans are incapable of governing and are going to lose again in 2016

Telcoman

Post by **Bubba1** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 3:49 pm

Howie, Hillary is not yet a slam dunk, though I wouldn't count her out either. Her campaign could use an overhaul. I think her success will depend on what Joe Biden does. He has less "baggage" so he could swipe the nomination from her if he runs. As far as the RNC. they actually have a candidate who many consider qualified. John Kasich of Ohio. I don't see Trump, Fiorina or Carson getting the republican nomination as their popularity I think is temporarily boosted by their not being traditional politicians, who as a group are pretty much loathed.

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:50 pm

Bubba1 wrote:Howie, Hillary is not yet a slam dunk, though I wouldn't count her out either. Her campaign could use an overhaul. .

Agreed! But she is still a strong contender.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... to-voting/

Bubba1 wrote: As far as the RNC. they actually have a candidate who many consider qualified. John Kasich of Ohio.

Not a very good one to attract the women's vote

Never been able to understand how a party that want's less government in peoples lives wants to be in their bedroom and doctors offices?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -providers

Telcoman

Post by **telcoman** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:22 am

Update

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/us/in ... -news&_r=0

Hillary is still doing well

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... board.html

Telcoman

The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Re: The 2016 march to the White House

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums