Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-03-2016, 06:06 PM
 
26,737 posts, read 15,295,867 times
Reputation: 14856

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling View Post
Still, more than half of Walmart is owned by "the Waltons"
I don't know of Clinton's involvement with that company, nor do I think that it matters to voters.
Yes, hypocritically, it doesn't matter to her voters.

Just like her voters that protest against elite privilege are cheering for her to get special privileges as a political elite in her mishandling of classified info scandal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2016, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,526 posts, read 3,068,780 times
Reputation: 4348
As a socialist who is to the left of Bernie Sanders (who is decidedly not a socialist), Clinton isn't even a remote possibility for me. I can envision voting for Sanders in a general election because I'm convinced of his sincerity and honesty--even though I don't agree with him on many issues.

With Clinton, terms like "sincerity" and "honesty" are jokes. She has shown herself to be a master of political manipulation, essentially saying what she feels necessary to acquire support. On her domestic policy, clinton is right-of-center, with the exception of her support for feminist issues which appeal to her most important core constituency.

Clinton's vote as a senator to invade Iraq, in the best of circumstances, shows just how reckless and gullible she is. Even more ominous is the possibility (likelihood?) that her vote was calculated to help position herself for a presidential run--political expediency, fueled by arrogance and blind ambition.

Hillary Clinton is indistinguishable from neocons on her foreign policy positions. Her pro-imperialist, pro-military-industrial-complex foreign policy would likely entrench this country in immoral, unwinnable conflicts around the world for decades to come; the cost of which would make any substantive move towards more progressive domestic policy unachievable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 06:51 PM
 
5,051 posts, read 3,608,125 times
Reputation: 6513
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead View Post
As a socialist who is to the left of Bernie Sanders (who is decidedly not a socialist), Clinton isn't even a remote possibility for me. I can envision voting for Sanders in a general election because I'm convinced of his sincerity and honesty--even though I don't agree with him on many issues.

With Clinton, terms like "sincerity" and "honesty" are jokes. She has shown herself to be a master of political manipulation, essentially saying what she feels necessary to acquire support. On her domestic policy, clinton is right-of-center, with the exception of her support for feminist issues which appeal to her most important core constituency.

Clinton's vote as a senator to invade Iraq, in the best of circumstances, shows just how reckless and gullible she is. Even more ominous is the possibility (likelihood?) that her vote was calculated to help position herself for a presidential run--political expediency, fueled by arrogance and blind ambition.

Hillary Clinton is indistinguishable from neocons on her foreign policy positions. Her pro-imperialist, pro-military-industrial-complex foreign policy would likely entrench this country in immoral, unwinnable conflicts around the world for decades to come; the cost of which would make any substantive move towards more progressive domestic policy unachievable.
So you are voting for Rubio ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,526 posts, read 3,068,780 times
Reputation: 4348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacanegro View Post
So you are voting for Rubio ?
?????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 11:52 PM
 
12,883 posts, read 14,085,371 times
Reputation: 18454
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo99 View Post
I agree. I am so tired of dynasty politics. Are we in the middle ages with lords and peasants? The Bushes are out for a while except if the next generation gets started. The Clintons, well Chelsea is obviously going to run to some office - probably soon.
Remember when Chelsea had her baby and left the NYC hospital with a blue dress on (like Kate) with her hair blown out and makeup done (like Kate), holding the baby in her arms all smiling and waving (like Kate) with her husband at her side (like Kate) as well as her parents? I cringed. So reminiscent of the royal family and how they introduce their babies to the world, and so so similar to how Kate brought out George. Blue dress and everything. Baby in her arms rather than the car seat, mom not leaving in a wheelchair like is usually standard. Walking down a similar set of stairs outside. There are even comparison side by side pics to Kate and George online. Google "Chelsea Clinton leaves hospital."

I remember thinking at the time... who does she think she is?? Who does she think her family is? They're not royalty. I don't recall Jenna Bush introducing her first baby in such a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2016, 11:58 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
6,456 posts, read 7,040,626 times
Reputation: 4669
The family is far too corrupt, the Clinton Foundation, the Emails, Benghazi (god forbid anyone still mention that).

She and Bill are a kin to a 'mafia' style family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 04:41 AM
 
26,737 posts, read 15,295,867 times
Reputation: 14856
The Clinton Foundation is a scam...

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013


Hillary is just an evil person, it is one thing for a lawyer to defend a rapist that she believes is guilty, it is another thing for a lawyer to attack and belittle a young rape victim that she believes is telling the truth while laughing.

Exclusive: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says - The Daily Beast


Remember, all of these sex crime victim of Bills are just bimbos, including the several that came forward before he was famous...

Rap Sheet: The Women Who Claim to Be Victims of Bill and Hillary Clinton - Breitbart


Hillary sent classified emails using her private set up while overseas via foreign telecoms that could have easily picked it off. This is a huge "no no" that she would have been trained specifically not to do. What other explanations for this are there besides #1 She is senile and forgets proper protocol, #2 She wanted foreign agents to pick off the info and is a traitor, OR #3 She lives in such a fantasy land where she is above the law, that she can do whatever she feels like without consequence -- "afluenza."

FBN Exclusive: DOJ Officials Fear Foreign Telecoms Hacked Clinton Emails, Server | Fox Business
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 09:57 AM
 
8,014 posts, read 5,907,518 times
Reputation: 9713
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Remember when Chelsea had her baby and left the NYC hospital with a blue dress on (like Kate) with her hair blown out and makeup done (like Kate), holding the baby in her arms all smiling and waving (like Kate) with her husband at her side (like Kate) as well as her parents? I cringed. So reminiscent of the royal family and how they introduce their babies to the world, and so so similar to how Kate brought out George. Blue dress and everything. Baby in her arms rather than the car seat, mom not leaving in a wheelchair like is usually standard. Walking down a similar set of stairs outside. There are even comparison side by side pics to Kate and George online. Google "Chelsea Clinton leaves hospital."

I remember thinking at the time... who does she think she is?? Who does she think her family is? They're not royalty. I don't recall Jenna Bush introducing her first baby in such a way.

No, they're not royalty. They are basically Arkansas trailer trash: a husband (Bubba) that sleeps with anything he can, a wife (Bride of Bubba) who stands by her man no matter how many "bimbo eruptions" he causes) and a daughter who thinks her parents are just wonderful people, despite bearing a striking resemblance to one of her mother's former law partners.

What a tangled Webb this white trash family has woven.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 02:53 PM
 
350 posts, read 419,672 times
Reputation: 396
Their consistent disregard for the law and willingness to do anything to get elected just never ends.

Clintons Show Contempt for Polling Station Laws, Violate Rules, Block Polling Station
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2016, 03:00 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,648,752 times
Reputation: 25817
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead View Post
As a socialist who is to the left of Bernie Sanders (who is decidedly not a socialist), Clinton isn't even a remote possibility for me. I can envision voting for Sanders in a general election because I'm convinced of his sincerity and honesty--even though I don't agree with him on many issues.

With Clinton, terms like "sincerity" and "honesty" are jokes. She has shown herself to be a master of political manipulation, essentially saying what she feels necessary to acquire support. On her domestic policy, clinton is right-of-center, with the exception of her support for feminist issues which appeal to her most important core constituency.

Clinton's vote as a senator to invade Iraq, in the best of circumstances, shows just how reckless and gullible she is. Even more ominous is the possibility (likelihood?) that her vote was calculated to help position herself for a presidential run--political expediency, fueled by arrogance and blind ambition.

Hillary Clinton is indistinguishable from neocons on her foreign policy positions. Her pro-imperialist, pro-military-industrial-complex foreign policy would likely entrench this country in immoral, unwinnable conflicts around the world for decades to come; the cost of which would make any substantive move towards more progressive domestic policy unachievable.
Anyone that thinks they are 'progressive' but yet willing to let Trump or Cruz run the country ~ is NO progressive, IMO.


IF you are waiting on the perfect candidate - you will be waiting a long, long time.


IF you are fine with a conservative supreme court for the next 30 years - undoing all the social progress that we have made (and yes that matters to me) you are no progressive. I don't know if some of you are just not that bright or perhaps Republican trolls (yes, they are out there) but certainly no progressive. There are good people in this country who will NEVER vote for anything resembling 'socialism' so it is unfortunate that Bernie gave himself that title. We are not Denmark or Sweden; we are the USA. Capitalism does work with the right regulations. Bernie is not electable at this time. 10 years ~ 20 years from now ~ perhaps.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Remember when Chelsea had her baby and left the NYC hospital with a blue dress on (like Kate) with her hair blown out and makeup done (like Kate), holding the baby in her arms all smiling and waving (like Kate) with her husband at her side (like Kate) as well as her parents? I cringed. So reminiscent of the royal family and how they introduce their babies to the world, and so so similar to how Kate brought out George. Blue dress and everything. Baby in her arms rather than the car seat, mom not leaving in a wheelchair like is usually standard. Walking down a similar set of stairs outside. There are even comparison side by side pics to Kate and George online. Google "Chelsea Clinton leaves hospital."

I remember thinking at the time... who does she think she is?? Who does she think her family is? They're not royalty. I don't recall Jenna Bush introducing her first baby in such a way.
Good lord. This family can't even have a baby without someone judging them. How petty.


How would YOUR life stand up to the scrutiny they have had for 40 years? You are rewarding 25 years of the Republican smear campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top