Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Clinton'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Main Rooms at the "Liberal Forum"
    • No Holds Barred Political Forum
    • Liberals Only Room
    • The Water Cooler Chat Room
    • Ninth Circle of Hell/Abandon all hope ye who enter here.
  • Liberal Forum Perspectives On Helping America
    • Mod room.
  • Str8tEdge's Video Gaming Club's Post games you're currently playing or all time favorites!
  • The Movie Club's Topics
  • The Movie Club's Topics
  • Music Club's Good vibes
  • Music Club's Topics
  • Music Club's What am I listening to now...
  • The Liberal Council's Topics
  • Great hints from imgreatagain's Household odors
  • Great hints from imgreatagain's A good nights sleep.
  • Great hints from imgreatagain's WD-40
  • SPORTS's Jordon
  • SOBER HOUSE's Topics


  • Kfools blog.
  • Life Beyond Legal Equality
  • 18 wheels and a dozen roses
  • deacon dan
  • LF.Org Card Casino
  • Nightowl
  • Working People Don't Care About Economic Inequality
  • Race And Conservatives

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start






Anti-Spam Check

Website URL

Found 18 results

  1. Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
  2. The U.S. Justice Department’s internal watchdog will release a long-awaited report on Thursday on the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe that she said contributed to her 2016 presidential election loss to Republican Donald Trump. The report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which will be released at 2 p.m. (1800 GMT), arose from a review he launched about a week before Trump took office in January 2017. The inquiry has focused on whether former FBI Director James Comey’s public statements about the bureau’s probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state were based on “improper considerations.” Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-fbi/justice-dept-watchdog-to-release-report-on-fbi-decisions-on-clinton-probe-idUSKBN1JA0D4
  3. Another scandal spreads in the American establishment. According to American columnist for National Review Andrew McCarthy in a recent column Glenn Simpson the co-founder of an intelligence firm Fusion GPS, that compiled research on Trump during the campaign, had testified to the Senate that the F.B.I. had a ‘human source’ within the campaign. Trump’s reaction was not long in coming. “Wow, word seems to be coming out that the Obama FBI SPIED ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH AN EMBEDDED INFORMANT,'” Trump tweeted. “Andrew McCarthy says, ‘There’s probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential informant in the campaign.'” Thus one more fact of the FBI's abuse of power added to the list against a background of the confrontation between the head of the White House and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The whole thing started in 2016. The powerful intelligence agency suffered criticism from Donald Trump back then during the elections. Then he accused the FBI of Hillary Clinton's support and covering the Clinton email investigation. Speaking in Minneapolis in 2016, Trump said Clinton was being “protected by a rigged system….she will be under investigation for a long, long time, likely concluding in a criminal trial”. At that time the tough talk of the odious businessman wasn't taken seriously, just because his words were not confirmed. Next the public became aware of text messages exchanged by two anti-Trump FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The pair worked on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server and were later kicked off special counsel Robert Mueller’s team probing possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. In the latest batch of texts from May 2017, Strzok and Page were ‘angry and mourning’ over Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Several conservative media and the expert community required to ‘investigate and prosecute’. However there had been no response from officials. In addition, in late January, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes reportedly accused the FBI of abusing FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrants to spy on Donald Trump’s campaign. But all these things were overshadowed by Comey's recent revelations. His claims and admissions confirmed the FBI under his direction actually had interfered into American elections. The former director admitted he had reopened an investigation on Clinton to legitimate her victory in presidential race and to show “impartiality” of the Bureau to the American people. At the time he was sure of her landslide victory. Comey did not conceal that he and his wife had given preference to Clinton in 2016. But at the time the ex-FBI head did not expect that his actions would deal a devastating blow to her campaign. These cases should be investigated seriously and may even require an assignment of another special counsel who would “stir up a wasps' nest” in the FBI. The American society has a right to demand the same impartiality as in the investigation of Trump-Russia connections.
  4. The title basically says it all. Why don't republican/conservative believe in socialism and government assistance. Why not take from the rich and give to the poor? I don't understand why the rich need all this money. Comments from both sides would be great. -Thanks About me: Female liberal In my 20's Social worker
  5. Your new narrative seems to be that Comey getting fired by Trump is an indicator of Trumps guilt in the stupid ass Russian Collusion probe. So answer me one question. DO YOU HONESTLY believe that Clinton after what Comey did to her would not have fired him if she won?
  6. As a young female, I feel that it is important to get our perspective out there. Keeping Trump's ass accountable.
  7. So as a young female, I believe its important to get our perspective out there. Keeping Trump's ass accountable.
  8. Few people doubted that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidential race in the USA. However following the election results, billionaire Donald Trump becomes the 45th POTUS. The news proved to be a real shock to the global politics and denoted the intensification of the anti-Trump campaign aimed at disputing his victory. Great Britain was the one most engaged in discrediting Donald Trump after the political elite had negotiated with Hillary Clinton for the status of privileged commercial and economic partner of the U.S. during and after Brexit. All hopes had been for the ex-Secretary of State. Today by a prior arrangement we publish an interview with an MI6 operative Richard Jones which he gave to us as insurance in case something happened to him. We haven't been able to get in touch with out informer for some time, so we believe it is our duty to keep our promise and make the interview available to public for consideration. · Before we start discussing the anti-Trump campaign, tell us why you went for the interview? · This is my protection in case something happens to me or my family. · Are you saying that MI6 wipes off its own operatives from the map? · Accidents take place and usually stay unnoticed by the public. · Has Christopher Steele's example had an impact on you? · No, it hasn't. · Have you met him? · I'd met him a couple of times before he left MI6 in 2009. · Steele's information, is it worth something? · MI6 has a stupendous Trump archive. And now there is no opportunity to distinguish the truth from the fiction invented by the operatives. · Alright, let's get back to the subject of our interview. What was the response of your colleagues to Trump's victory? · I remember the election day full well. We had been working round the clock for days and when it was announced that Trump had won the election we, just like many others, were puzzled, I would even say dazed by what had happened. All our efforts were fruitless. · What kind of efforts? · To discredit Trump. · Could you tell more about that? · British government staunchly supported Hillary Clinton after former PM David Cameron reached an agreement with her. · And what was this agreement about? · It was related to the UK's withdrawal from the European Union. · And how is Brexit relevant here? · Brexit means that Great Britain will have to review its economic relations with other countries and significantly change them. Clinton's victory would give Britain the status of a privileged economic partner unlike all other countries under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership when it is finally pushed through. In that way negative effect of Brexit would be minimal. · But Cameron's position was always pro-European. · Cameron had been up to date about the plan since the very beginning. His commitment to the European Union is just a peacockery. Ex-PM's goal was to make it look like an attempt to keep Britain in the EU. Well, he succeeded and then resigned so Brexit supporters with Theresa May in the lead could go further. · And Trump won... · Yes, and disrupted our plans. We had no agreements with Trump, not even a single contact. When he won, the highest ranks in MI6 and British political elite had gone mad, and today they continue looking for the guilty. · That is the reason for your concern. · Exactly. · Could you expand on your assignment? · Searching for and, if necessary, creating the damaging and sensitive information that could harm Trump as a presidential candidate, and now as president-elect. · So the work continues? · It has never stopped. We have a lot of prepared data on Trump that could irretrievably ruin his reputation. · And you are going to publish it. · I don't know whether MI6 is going to publish it or not. But this data is also in my possession and I keep it as a part of my insurance. · How could the data be made available to the public? · By means of the U.S. media that support Clinton. We pass all information on Trump to Clinton's team and the rest is their part. · Let's return to Trump and Britain. What is next? · Brexit supporters and their American allies, I mean Clinton and the U.S. Democratic Party, are not going to surrender. · What could be their goal now? · To impeach Trump and get rid of him. · Do you believe this is possible? · Brexit supporters have wide economic interests. The stakes are too high! Trump is unpredictable and if Britain loses the U.S. support in the process of leaving the EU, then it will face multibillion losses. The British government can't allow that, and Clinton's political ambitions have also not been satisfied, so I have no doubts that our work will go on. · Thank you for the interview. Source
  9. What are your thoughts on young American citizens protesting against presidential elect Trump on college campuses nationwide? I personally participated in a protest at Rutgers University yesterday where over a thousand people (students and faculty) came together to protest. I recorded some footage of the protest while I was there. Please skip through the footage before commenting your thoughts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gru5zX5kYrs
  10. If the idea of "liberal" has any meaning, we must adapt to the world we live in. As Einstein said, "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results IS the definition of insanity". Coming out of this election, if we retrench back to our old and comfortable lines, we insure the same process repeats. The reality is that this country's vote split pretty much down the middle. One half of the people voted for Trump and one half voted for Hillary. Because of our own arcane and unchanged rules, Trump won. That is a reality that we have to accept before we do anything else. TRUMP WON. Let your head wrap around that one for a moment. This is the president we have to live with for the next 4 years whether you want to or not. Saying anything else, wanting to play the election over or having some other process try to save us, is just grasping at straws. If we want this to be different then we need to BE different. The biggest fallacy of this campaign (and I was guilty of it too), was that Trump was so flawed that NO ONE would vote for him. He kept proving it over and over again so it seemed a no brainer. Guess what, that is a fallacy. 1 out of 2 people would and DID vote for him. This is an absolutely proven fact. The more Trump's flaws were pointed out, the more determined we made people to vote for him. What he DID do is offer people a choice over the tried and true Washington insider. He held out the promise and the possibility of something different beyond the same people reaping the rewards and the same people being left out. Guess what? The same people were very tired of being on the losing end. They were tired of their work closing and being left out of the economic upturn. People generally didn't want Trump but he was the only one in the ring that offered something different. He was the only one that did not scream "politics as usual!" Hillary came out and said, "If you like Obama, I'll give you more of the same!" The result tells us that wasn't enough. If we had accepted the split when it was first presented, that 1 out of 2 people would feel left out, that would have told us that you have to reach out to those people to reach them. Even a little! You can't take everyone with you but even a very few would have made a huge difference. It was entirely possible to reach to the set of people who had no job opportunities and give them those, It was entirely possible to listen to those people and give at least some of them a place at the table. When the decision was made that they weren't needed, they turned out in droves to tell the world that they were relevant. Calling that anything but a mistake is fruitless face saving. It WASN'T money. Hillary and crew spent boatloads. Poorly apparently because they didn't buy the election. Throwing more money at it is just stupidity if there isn't a message that resonates. Guess what? Insuring that every minority group gets their rights is not a resonating message unless you include EVERY group. If you put them in a basket they see themselves that way and vote that way. This IS reality for at least the next 10 years. It will take at least that long for significant numbers of the white, older, un-college educated, currently left behind to die off enough to impact the elections. 10 years is a long time to be out of power. If the liberal side of the argument reaches for the familiar it makes a mistake. Liberals need a message that include a significant chunk of the folks that voted for "something, anything DIFFERENT". It is entirely possible to offer these folks an education and an ability to get a job. Make them one of us instead of not us. Liberals cannot keep playing the game of automatically being on the other side from the right. "For everything they do, we do the opposite." That is just being the "loyal opposition". You let them set the agenda and we are on the negative side. Being a liberal has to stand for something, to take risks, to bring the benefits to people not normally thought of. If it doesn't, it just sets up to lose again. The liberal message already resonates, "give rights to EVERYONE" and this time don't automatically assume that white males know they are included when clearly they are not. You have to actively reach out to that group. This might be hard but seeing that this group already sees they are a group and excluded should tell us something. After all 10 years is a LONG, LONG time to lose.
  11. It’s too bad it took a Brit to tell the truth about the incestuous relationship between the American media and the Clintons.When Daily Mail opinion columnist Katie Hopkins appeared on CNN last week she deftly dropped the “Clinton News Network” epithet on her host, Hala Gorani. It really was quite delicious. In response to a question about whether Trump could win Hopkins replied, “I think he’s gonna win. I think you guys are in for a big surprise which I’m quite excited about. I think we’ve seen a very similar thing here in the UK with Brexit. We saw a lot of the liberal press kind of sneering at Brexiteers. We saw a lot of the sneering that we see from the Clinton News Network and I think it’s something—” At this point, Hala Gorani interrupted, “That’s CNN. You’re calling us the Clinton News Network.Why? Why do you call us the Clinton News Network when we prominently featured a Florida poll that showed Donald Trump had a couple of points lead [inaudible]?” Hopkins landed a clean shot on CNN’s jaw. Good for her. She is probably wrong about Trump’s chances but she was right to say that CNN is nothing but a front for Clinton, inc. Hala Gorani’s protests to the contrary came off as desperate, as if running a poll showing Trump leading in one state somehow proves that CNN is beholden to no one. If my memory serves me correctly, the term “Clinton News Network” dates back to the first Clinton presidency, which is to say about twenty years. As the name suggests, the world’s first 24-hour news network does not merely bend to the Democratic left—which is basically a given—but also that it’s specifically Clintonian. CNN oldtimer Larry King let that secret slip 24 years ago when he was caught on a hot mic sucking up to then-Governor Bill Clinton during the 1992 campaign. King slyly admitted that Ted Turner, who owned CNN at the time, would “serve” Clinton. It’s hard to imagine that he meant anything other than that Turner would be willing to put the massive influence of his network, which then had a monopoly on cable news, at Clinton’s disposal. Here’s the transcript: KING: Ted Turner changed the world. Big fan of yours, you know? CLINTON: Is he? KING: He would, uh, serve you. You know what I mean? CLINTON: You’re kidding. KING: Oh you’d be surprised. He’s [inaudible]. What’s he got left in life to gain? I’d call him after you’re elected. Think about it. CLINTON: Huh. KING: No dope. CLINTON: That’s for sure. I’m sure Hillary’s fan club would use the same old tactics they always use to deny the validity of that very candid moment—“It’s old news!” “That was Bill, not Hillary!” “Out of context!” and blah, blah, blah. But when it comes to the love affair between the Clintons and their network, some things never change. When the Hillary Clinton campaign hosted an “off the record” cocktail party at the Manhattan home of a prominent donor they invited “influential reporters, anchors and editors.” The purpose of the event was to coordinate directly with the media to get their message out and to gin up excitement about Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. It was an egregious example of media players violating the professional distance they should maintain from the candidates they cover. Among the 38 who RSVP’ed were nine from CNN—more than from any other news outlet. CNN President Jeff Zucker apparently declined his invitation though he never mentioned publicly that this highly unprofessional schmooze-fest took place and there’s no indication that he disciplined any of his nine unethical employees. The fact that they still have jobs indicates his tacit approval. The Clinton News Network also employed Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist and Clinton loyalist who was until very recently a regular contributor to several CNN programs. She was fired in October after Wikileaks emails revealed that she fed at least two questions to Clinton in advance of a debate or debates that took place during the Democratic primaries. In Brazile’s email she admits that “from time to time” she “get questions in advance,” which indicates that she’s done this before. One question involved the death penalty and another was a wiffleball about lead-contaminated water in Flint, Michigan. This wasn’t a case of CNN merely preferring Democrats over Republicans. This was an example of CNN rigging the game to boost a candidate named Clinton above even fellow Democrats. Naturally, CNN has denied any wrong-doing.“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” pronounced a network spokeswoman. The truth of the matter is more complicated. Obviously someone at the network leaked the questions, but who? According to Brazile’s own email, her source for at least one of the unknown total number of questions is Roland Martin, who has worked with but not for CNN. Martin reportedly received it from CNN’s Jake Tapper. To say that Brazile did not receive any access to questions may be a premature conclusion in light of the fact that no one knows how many questions she’s received over the years. In any case, her indirect access highlights serious ethical shortcomings at CNN. But CNN’s main contribution to this year’s Clinton campaign has not been in leaking debate questions or making a spectacle out of Donald Trump’s antics. Their primary utility has been in squashing stories—in other words, by doing exactly the opposite of what a free press is supposed to do. Think of CNN as a fire brigade that runs around putting out fires for their favorite candidate. Wherever there’s a story that could potentially harm Hillary’s electoral chances CNN is there to suffocate it with speed and ferocity. My favorite example of this was CNN’s desperate efforts to spin discussion of Mrs. Clinton’s ailing health as mere “conspiracy theories.” She’s fit as a fiddle! “The new birthers: Debunking the Hillary Clinton health conspiracy” blared a piece from August. Wherever would these conspiracy theorists get the idea that Mrs. Clinton is unwell? Maybe it’s because she can’t climb a few stairs and she hacks like an old barmaid. When Hillary was interviewed by the FBI about her email server she pleaded ignorance again and again, claiming that her memory hadn’t been the same since she suffered a concussion in 2012. She was probably lying about not being able to remember, of course, but she did faint at her home and hit her head. If she’s so healthy, why is she always stumbling and falling down? The article continued: “Clinton’s physician — the only person to speak on the record who has actually examined her — has repeatedly affirmed the former secretary of state’s health and fitness for the highest office in the land.” Sure—but that means nothing because Hillary Clinton would never employ a doctor who wouldn’t lie for her. As it turned out, Hillary was (or is) sick—only the diagnosis is unknown. She was forced to admit it after collapsing in New York in early September. Even then Clinton refused to go the hospital in hopes that she might be able to continue the charade. She now claims that she was fighting walking pneumonia. Maybe she was or maybe she’s been struggling with a more permanent medical condition but in either case her doctor is a liar. Can I blame CNN for that? Yes, I can. A denial from Clinton’s surrogate is nothing more than a denial from Clinton herself and no journalist should take it at face value. But that’s how CNN operates—they consider any charge to be “debunked” once it’s been denied by their preferred candidate. If you don’t believe her, you’re a “conspiracy theorist.” That’s not journalism, it’s public relations. It took CNN years of hard work to earn the title “Clinton News Network.” It isn’t easy being the lackey of the world’s most powerful couple. People start asking embarrassing questions like “Why are so many of your reporters at secret meetings with Clinton?” and “How the heck did Clinton know the debate questions in advance?” Then network spokespeople have to scramble to cover CNN’s bare backside. It’s almost enough to make me feel sorry for them. Almost. Source
  12. Read the email here! WikiLeaks Missing Hillary Email Proves Trump Sandbagging Election BREAKING NEWS August 05, 2016 – London, UK – WikiLeaks has released a newly recovered email suggesting a Trump - Clinton conspiracy was being hatched as early as 2008, the night she lost the primary to Barack Obama, to ensure her election eight years later. Read Trump’s full confession of the conspiracy here: https://www.amazon.com/Unauthorized-Trump-Handed-Hillary-Presidency/dp/1535089741 http://unauthorizedtrump.com Table of Contents Chapter 1: What’s Good for Business is Good for America Chapter 2: All About My ‘Bill’-ions Chapter 3: Birth er’ a Master Plan Chapter 4: O Say Cain You See Chapter 5: A Left Crook and a Right Jeb Chapter 6: What Really Berns My Craw Chapter 7: Making Hillary Great Again Chapter 8: Putin’ the Smack Down Chapter 9: Systematically Dismantling the GOP Chapter 10: Mindful Mindlessness Chapter 11: If I Had Won The End.
  13. Leading up to this election, with men as the only presidential option, and men controlling about 80 percent of both the House and Senate, women have voted in larger numbers than have men. There have also been more women registered voters than men. This November, we’ll know how many more women will register and vote in this powerfully historic election when a woman is finally at the top of a ticket. Some may claim that it’s possible to already accurately predict this number through focus groups and in-house polling. It’s not. One reason this isn’t yet possible is because there’s no existing historical precedent we can use as a barometer. A larger reason is that, as anyone who follows elections knows all too well, undecideds do not begin to seriously think about the election until after Labor Day. An even larger reason is that the number of additional women who will vote this November will depend on how successful Clinton is in awakening this untapped demographic of women who do not yet regularly vote solely because they feel disenfranchised. As a means of awaking this yet untapped demographic, the Democratic Party could not have asked for a better candidate to run against. Trump’s crudeness and eagerness to speak to and about woman in a way no gentlemen would ever dream of represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the awakening of this potentially overwhelming new storm of sleeping beauties. If Clinton goes with Vilsack or Kaine, many women may conclude that this election isn’t really about women as much as it is about Hillary. They’ll probably also conclude that because in eight years, everything will return to the male-dominated norm we’ve had for the last 229 years, there’s no compelling reason to vote this year. If some of these women happen to be the kind of idealists who tend to stay out of elections because today’s politics inspire too little to hope for, they’ll feel doubly slighted because Vilsack and Kaine represent the past and present, while Warren represents a more promising future. If Clinton goes with Vilsack or Kaine, many progressives who’ve longed for this election where they can fight their heart out for the most progressive Democratic Party platform in decades, and who are eager to wage political warfare against a Donald Trump who in so many ways exemplifies everything they’ve been against for decades, will feel that hope-sustaining fight mercilessly yanked from them. As their hearts sink in the kind of profound disappointment I, for one, would keenly feel, so will the kind of resolve that energizes electorates, and assures big wins for political parties. If Clinton picks Warren, she will accomplish the following goals: 1. Clinton will amplify to a magnitude impossible for anyone to ignore or dismiss the long-overdue and historic nature of this move from a deeply dysfunctional male-ruled country to a new kind of politics that will, in time, prove both far more civil and effective at getting things done. 2. Clinton will assure American women that we’re not going back to male-dominated politics, with Warren running for the presidency in 2024, at the age of 75. For those who think that’s too old, keep in mind that Trump is 70, and that women outlive men. If Warren decides to stay out of the 2024 race, at least we’ll know that the presumptive nominee will not assuredly be another male. In that case, we now have about six years to groom the woman president who will follow Clinton. 3. Clinton will assure that we progressives will fight harder than we’ve ever fought before for something truly worth fighting for. 4. Clinton will invite the claim that “we can live with a woman president, but a two-woman ticket is going way too far.” This dynamic would be the perfect invitation for Clinton and the rest of the Democratic Party to attack this kind of Neanderthal mindset with facts like that today there are more women than men in medical and law school, and that girls are now out-performing boys in both math and science. More importantly, as Clinton, and, more to the point, ALL WOMEN come under that attack, there will be a rallying together of women who will come to Clinton’s, and, indeed, to ALL WOMEN’S, defense with an intensity, and in numbers, not seen since the historic battle women waged to win the vote in 1920. What Clinton needs to do between now and November 8th is to launch a campaign that appeals powerfully to women. She doesn’t have to worry about winning the white male vote. Too many white males are too heavily invested in the markets to risk their life savings to the loose cannon, three-time bankruptcy filing Trump. Women need to be reminded of the many ways women are discriminated against, and women need to be at the forefront of this historic campaign. If Clinton has the kind of vision our country and our world sorely needs if we are to overcome the major challenges that confront us, she’ll understand this. If she doesn’t, we’ll still win in November, but don’t expect much to change. We probably won’t win the House, and the current gridlock will remain. No guts, no glory. We need Clinton to show us she has the guts to powerfully trounce Trump and the rest of the Republican Party. Picking Vilsack or Kaine just won’t cut it. Picking Warren will, in a way reminiscent of how Joan of Arc inspired and led the French army to victory over England.
  14. Hillary Clinton can't be trusted because of the series of allegations that she's been facing. If I was facing such allegations, I would be sent to prison but she's getting off scott free. That is sad. Because of these allegations, I would rather have a dog catcher for President. Also, Hillary said that she's going to put a lot of coal miners out of work. Coal miners are human beings just like everybody else and they need their jobs. What will coal miners and their families do when they go hungry or are evicted because they can't afford to buy food and or pay their bills? If coal miners vote for Hillary, they'll be slicing their own throats. I'm also worried that Hillary may not stop at just putting coal miners out of work. What if she puts other people out of work also? I honestly believe that no votes or write in votes for Bernie Sanders would be better than votes for Hillary.
  15. Well let freedom ring, fans. Hillary is about to be free at last. Free from having to fret and worry about her campaign. Indicted or not, (and one hears it will be the former), William Jefferson has her in a corner with NO exit as Sartre wrote. Even Carl Bernstein believes that this is her undoing. Remember MacBeth, King Lear, and all the other great tragedies. No one remembers Watergate anymore------this is so mach Bigger than Watergate. Watch the next three weeks as History is MADE.
  16. Hello, I'm currently writing an argumentative paper on how news sources cover topics. I've chosen the debate between Sanders and Clinton. My questions to any readers here is if you didn't watch the debate and you went online to look for information about the debate, what would you look for in an article? What would turn you away from an article? Which news source do you consider to be the most reliable or neutral? I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to get others to write my paper for me. I'm just trying to gather information from others to get a feel for which direction I should go and to support statements in the paper. Thank you for reading!
  17. If Hillary Clinton wins, how much influence do you think Bill Clinton will have? If Hillary gets into office, do you think Bill will have a strong influence guiding Hillary? Do you think Bill will want to interfere with her presidency, or could Hillary completely ingore his advice? What do you think Bill's role will be in her administration; secretary of state? Vice president (obviously this is a bit of a fantasy.)? When Bill Clinton was president, his advisors nicknamed Hillary as the "Supreme Court" because he would consult her on every decision he made. Do you think he will have similar influence in a Hillary administration? Obviously, we can not be completely sure as we've never seen this situation before. Vote on this poll here: https://twitter.com/FennerStevens/status/670751548394352640
  18. Every time I turn on some political news I keep hearing about how well Bernie Sanders is doing in his bid to become the Democratic nominee for president. I'll admit his numbers have marginally improved over the last month. But he still lags behind Clinton by a mile. Of course the media would prefer a closer race, but reporting it as if there is any kind of real challenge is just plain deceptive. Don't get me wrong, I like Bernie. But the bottom line is that if by some kind of bizarre set of circumstances, Sanders did' become the Democratic nominee, it was most likely insure we would get a Republican president in 2016. Sanders is just to far to the Left to get elected. It must be admitted that a big reason Obama defeated McCain and Romney was because they were too far to the Right. Until the GOP comes to it's senses and moves back towards the center, they have very little chance of ever regaining the White House.
  • Create New...