The 2016 march to the White House

Post by **telcoman** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:48 pm

Begins this Sunday

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/po ... -well&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... ing-small/

Meantime in Nashville

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Heard the same about Obama and he was elected twice.

“A succession of potential Republican presidential rivals slung criticism and cracked jokes about the Democratic candidate-to-be, and NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, never given to understatement, predicted doom for the nation if she should win.”

Occasionally watching Fox should provide lots of laughs with experts such as Rove, Hannity, and perhaps the big d!ck Morris.

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 4:24 pm

I'd say her announcement is DOA. If economic issues take a back seat to national security in 2016, Clinton's record will scuttle her chance at the White house.

SCANDALS SKEWER HILLARY IN SWING STATES

As news of another suspect foreign entanglement hits Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a new survey shows how damaging the fallout from her scandal twin-bill of secret email servers and foreign buckraking have been. A Quinnipiac University poll out yesterday says Clinton’s lead is collapsing against leading Republican presidential candidates in the critical swing states of Colorado, Iowa and Virginia. The size of the drop from Q’s mid-February survey, coupled with gains by the entire GOP field leads the pollster to conclude, “t is difficult to see Secretary Clinton’s slippage as anything other than a further toll on her image from the furor over her e-mail.” Respondents in all three states say she is not honest and trustworthy.

Nasty numbers - In match-ups, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., drew 44 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent in Colorado, as he and 5 other GOP hopefuls statistically tied the Democratic frontrunner. In Iowa, Paul at 43 percent, has a numerical edge over Clinton’s 42 percent, with the rest of the field effectively tied or close. Clinton fared better in Virginia, with a 47 to 43 percent lead over Paul, her closest GOP rival.

Post by **telcoman** » Sat Apr 11, 2015 2:47 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
None of her so called Right Wing scandals will matter to a majority of voters. Only those who watch Fox believe them
For more than 25 years the right has been after the Clintons.
Her husband Bill could win again if he chose to run.
Voters will be getting a two for one deal when they elect Hillary
What a great deal for Americans and this country

Telcoman

Post by **themadscientist** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:30 pm

All her opponents both Democrat and Republican have to do is say "Benghazi."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ential-bid

I guess we'll find out, won't we?

I'd say she is in a similar condition to those unfortunate souls she had a hand in allowing to die, DOA.

Hillary's only hope is the Republicans. The good news for her, they seem to be willing to help her out by backing the same kind of jackasses they always do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -2016.html

Post by **Rogue One** » Sun Apr 12, 2015 7:01 pm

'Everyday Americans need a champion,' says the multimillionaire politician in a launch video.
Clinton's press office left an embarrassing typo in its press announcement, saying that she had 'fought children and families all her career'.
Official campaign website is full of biographical material but includes no policy statements or issue platforms.

Hillary Clinton Weighs How to Recast Ties to Obama Aligning herself too closely with Mr. Obama is fraught with risk for Mrs. Clinton. “That’s the anchor she’ll be dragging for the next couple of years,” said Stuart Stevens, who was a top strategist for Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee.

Post by **themadscientist** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:37 am

Rogue One wrote:'Stuart Stevens, who was a top strategist for Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee.

Yeah, and that was a great campaign, too. Better do whatever that guy says.

I hear she has GWB traineing her to dodge more shoes.

Got work on those dodgeball skills, Hilly. Always look eye

Post by **themadscientist** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:04 am

That didn't take long at all.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAbeuxF

Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of US sanctions imposed on the country.

Newsweek has seen declarations and documents from Ukraine that show a series of shipments from Interpipe to Iran in 2011 and 2012, including railway parts and products commonly used in the oil and gas sectors.

Among a number of high-value invoices for products related to rail or oil and gas, one shipment for $1.8m (1.7m) in May 2012 was for “seamless hot-worked steel pipes for pipelines” and destined for a city near the Caspian Sea.

Both the rail and oil and gas sectors are sanctioned by the US, which specifically prohibits any single invoice to the Iranian petrochemical industry worth more than $1m.

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

The US authorities can also penalise non-American companies with no base in the US at all which it judges to be working counter to its foreign policy, as happened to Zhuhai Zhenrong, a Chinese oil company, in 2012.

Being denied access to US markets and the US banking system could prove catastrophic to Interpipe, given that accountancy giant Ernst & Young has raised questions over its viability.

The person in charge of this list of non-US companies is the Secretary of State, who between 2009 to 2013 – the period during which Pinchuk’s company was trading with Iran – was Hillary Clinton.

Post by **Rogue One** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 7:48 am

Post by **Bubba1** » Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:13 am

Rogue One wrote:

Post by **Rogue One** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 2:39 pm

There is a growing movement of people wearing these shirts to Hillary Clinton's campaign stops but... "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"?

Benghazi

Post by **telcoman** » Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:03 pm

Bubba1 wrote:
Rogue One wrote:

Subject matter expert on cyberbullying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Lewinsky

"n October 2014 she took a public stand against cyberbullying, calling herself "patient zero" of online harassment.[52] Speaking at a Forbes magazine "30 Under 30" Summit about her experiences in the aftermath of the scandal, she said, "Having survived myself, what I want to do now is help other victims of the shame game survive, too."[52][53] She said she was influenced by reading about the suicide of Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers University freshman where cyberbullying was involved[52] and joined Twitter to facilitate her efforts.[54][53]

In March 2015, Lewinsky continued to speak out publicly against cyberbullying,[55] delivering a TED talk calling for a more compassionate Internet."

Telcoman

Post by **themadscientist** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:00 am

Who gives a s***?

Post by **Rogue One** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:44 am

Hookers For Hillary: Nevada sex workers come out in favor of Clinton for president in 2016

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3XrBYwQMn

Post by **telcoman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 7:13 am

Rogue One wrote:Hookers For Hillary: Nevada sex workers come out in favor of Clinton for president in 2016

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3XrBYwQMn

"The group cite Clinton's work on health care reform, foreign experience, tax reform and responsible government oversight on public health issues"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3XrISHBm0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Even they are much smarter than anyone running or thinking of running on the right

Telcoman

Post by **Bubba1** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 9:33 am

themadscientist wrote:Who gives a s***?

I do. If you follow "TED" seminars, Lewinsky gave a compelling speech. I just watched it. Of course, she did something incredibly stupid years ago. She doesn't deny it. But after hearing what she endured afterward, with the political manipulations, the media + social media's "internet shaming" feeding frenzy literally lasting years etc, plus all the notoriety without the means to insulate herself from it all, I feel sympathy for her.

Now with Hilary announcing her candidacy again, all that abuse (including the jokes at her expense) has started up again for her, especially by the right.

Post by **telcoman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 11:05 am

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Agreed

Monica appears to have gotten over it, Hillary appears to have gotten over it, Bill has gotten over it and is more popular than ever, Chelsea appears to have gotten over it, and the majority of American adults appear to have gotten over it.

The right is scared s#itless of of a Hilary Presidency so they are bringing all of this Monica BS up again.

They have no plan or agenda on fixing what is wrong in America. Our roads, bridges, railroads are falling apart and they only want to attack what may very well become the first female elected president of the United States that has far better qualifications than anyone else.

Every day they fail to address the problems this country is facing is another winning day for Hillary

Telcoman

Post by **themadscientist** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:58 pm

Was it incredibly stupid, though? She is a public figure, sort of a celebrity and makes money because of it. I never felt like she was victim of anything nor a bad person. She blew a guy, that's downright friendly. Bill was the D-bag. Hillary didn't care though. Bill was a means to an end, an end she is again pursuing. When Bill said he didn't have sexual relations with "that woman" I thought he meant Hillary.

Post by **telcoman** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 4:50 pm

What does all of this have to do with the complex job of running The United States?

Only the extreme right is hung up on a previous president receiving a blow job from another consenting adult.
Monica described that incident with a friend who then betrayed her.

Telcoman

Post by **themadscientist** » Mon Apr 20, 2015 6:55 pm

Only because Republicans aren't crafty enough to score blowjobs from interns. For the party of women they sure don't mind putting them on their knees to serve powerful men when it suits them. Hillary sure kept her lips zipped and overlooked it to her benefit proving she too is "one of the boys." Don't try to extrapolate that as a pass for the Republicans either, they are just as scummy. Just demonstrating the similarities between the two sides of the same filthy coin.

Post by **Bubba1** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 5:52 am

LOL. Chris Rock is awesome.

I think the big difference is Lewinsky did not seek the spotlight. She was outed by John Goodman...er I mean Linda Tripp and then quickly became political fodder, most of whom still use Lewinsky as a prop to this day, which is crass. Clearly Lewinsky was beyond stupid as she should have known that giving hummers to a married POTUS was eventually going to blow up in her face (ahem). But any money she may have made after becoming famous (or infamous) was miniscule compared to the decades of abuse she's taken. As far as Hillary. I don't think she kept her lips zipped to somehow prove she was "one of the boys". I think she carefully weighed her options, and concluded there was more to gain politically by not fighting her husband in public. At the end of the day, she's a politician first with high aspirations.

As far as Benghazi, I don't see it being a major sway factor in the 2016 election despite Fox News' obsession with trying to keep it in the news cycle. If you recall, several years ago, there was another well-publicized political scandal called "Iran Contra" which involved the other side of the aisle. It had faded before the next election. So will Benghazi.

Post by **themadscientist** » Tue Apr 21, 2015 6:40 am

Lots of lols in that post. I forgot Goodman put on a wig for that one.

Post by **themadscientist** » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:06 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/po ... ident.html

Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, announced Thursday that he was running for president as a Democrat, injecting a progressive voice into the contest and providing Hillary Rodham Clinton with her first official rival for the party’s nomination.

Howie must be very excited about Mr. Sanders tossing his hat in the ring, given how he's described.

Democrats who have been hoping for more liberal candidates to enter the race, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts or former Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, cheered Mr. Sanders’s decision.

He might be a spoiler hitting Hillary hard from the left! Hillary actually isn't so far to the left that she bothers me. It's how corrupt she is that makes her a non-starter for me,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /26564509/

That's some rich folks dumping cash on her. Look at who is backing Bernie. That sure looks like old-school working-class liberals to me.

Wow, he seems to be even more left than Elizabeth Warren and actually CALLS HIMSELF A SOCIALIST! s***, Fox doesn't even have to spin him that way. They might have a round of layoffs if he gets the nomination. https://www.crowdpac.com/elections/2016 ... l-election

With nobody on the other side worth a s***, Cmon Jon, run!

and no independent yet rising up who can challenge the right end of the extremist pool I'll have to entertain myself with the squabbling in the Democrat primaries. All these folks who scream about how liberal they are better step up and back Bernie if they don't want to be shown as NeoCon-Lite! Double down or STFU.

This should be fun.

Post by **telcoman** » Fri May 01, 2015 4:20 am

Welcome Bernie Sanders to the 2016 presidential party.

You would be a fine addition to Hillary Clinton's VP spot

I would be more excited to see full disclosure of dark money on the right

http://billmoyers.com/2014/04/10/nothin ... al-empire/

Still waiting to see Mitt Romney's tax returns that he refused to disclose in the last presidential election. Wonder how much money he has stashed off shore?

Time to start increasing taxes on the super wealthy to balance our federal budget, reduce the deficit, and save social security healthcare, medicare and government paid full college tuition for the next generation.

Telcoman

Post by **telcoman** » Fri May 01, 2015 5:12 am

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... _index.ssf

Post by **Rogue One** » Fri May 01, 2015 6:17 am

telcoman wrote:I would be more excited to see full disclosure of dark money on the right
Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Fri May 01, 2015 6:58 pm

Frankenhillary

As Clinton scandals continue to mount and her credibility plummets, gleeful Republicans are quietly discussing what once seemed impossible: Hillary Clinton might not survive primary season, let alone make it all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue.

That may well turn out to be the case. But it’s not because of the allegations about “Clinton cash” or deleted emails. Those are major political scandals, to be sure, but of a kind that a shameless Bill Clinton skated through easily during his own administration.

The deeper problem is personal. As the veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum put it to me, rather forlornly, in an interview for my book, Clinton, Inc., Hillary Clinton simply isn’t a very good candidate. “I’ve seen her and him in rooms, and she doesn’t have the whirr,” said Shrum, who worked on the failed Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns. “Your eyes aren’t constantly drawn to her the way they are to him.”

To the contrary, one’s eyes are drawn away. The Hillary campaign is like a movie you decide halfway through that you didn’t really want to see in the first place.

As a candidate, she is the Democrats’ Frankenstein creature—a patched-together amalgam of all the worst traits of recent presidential campaigns and virtually none of their more winning attributes. Examples abound.

Read the full story at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ ... 35187.html

Post by **themadscientist** » Fri May 01, 2015 10:50 pm

This is the mystery Republicans need to solve: how a political Frankenstein creature can combine so many negative traits and still position herself well to be the next president.

Because they are too arrogant to figure out why they lost to a guy with no record to stand on, twice.

Post by **telcoman** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:20 pm

themadscientist wrote:
This is the mystery Republicans need to solve: how a political Frankenstein creature can combine so many negative traits and still position herself well to be the next president.
Because they are too arrogant to figure out why they lost to a guy with no record to stand on, twice.

Far superior than any running on the right

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/im-gonna-vot ... m_fb_msnbc

Telcoman

Post by **Rogue One** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:59 pm

Al Gore declined to back Hillary Clinton for president when asked who he thinks would be next in the White House.

When questioned by WPP founder Sir Martin Sorrell at the Cannes Lions festival of creativity about whom he would back for 2016, Gore — Bill Clinton’s vice president from 1993 to 2001 —notably didn’t take the chance to praise Hillary.

Post by **Bubba1** » Wed Jul 01, 2015 9:51 am

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

Yep ^

The 2016 march to the White House

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