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.
In March, they figured out that maybe they should stop harassing and blasting on the Bernie supporters NOT because they realized that what they were doing was wrong, but because they needed them to vote for Hillary later. That's all Hillary is about: After flat out LYING, use and then toss to the side.
Sometime soon I am going to suggest that Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio create the equivalent of a People's PAC to raise huge amounts of money from small donors---after the convention---to support electing liberals at all levels....including but far beyond Hillary assuming she is nominated.....
Beyond this Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says things that are untrue, which candidly she often does. I am one of the people with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November, and she and Benenson and others have no idea of the damage she does to herself with these attacks, which she does not gain by making.
Instead the smart move would be to look for issues where she can dovetail with Bernie. One I am definitely going to suggest would be to take his proposal for a free public college education paid for by a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation and add one new dimension....that to receive this benefit young people should devote one year to some form of community or public service....
There is no reason Hillary cannot not support this....
Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republicans nominating Trump....she has huge endemic political weaknesses that she would be wise to rectify.....even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me.....
No... There are way too many ignorant people with other things more important to do. They will be fed the edited versions that push on a direction and it will be the misinformed voter, pulling the lever for Clinton.
Show me young Republican and I will show you someone with no heart. Show me and old Democrat and I'll show you someone with no brain.
They can push anything on the young and naive, but once some age gets on them, they realize they are paying for it.
What I glean from all of this as an uneducated deplorable is that Hillary is a master of lip service for the little people with her full focus on Wall Street, globalization (enslaving the 3rd world) and enriching the already rich.
To alleviate any more "so" responses, you first need to comprehend "coordination violations" when it comes to SuperPACS. So here is your lesson if you don't already know:
Now that you're all caught up on "coordination violations", let's get to the next good stuff in the leaks. In the words of Kenneth Vogel: "Memo shows how closely Clinton campaign worked w/ super PAC to raise big $ while avoiding "coordination" violations." If you fail to understand what he's saying, you can also call them "legal tricks". If you think that these are okay because they were legal, then you should probably go ahead and clamp that pie hole shut about Trump and his legal taxes.
Quote:
I. Fundraising
A. Providing Donor Information to Priorities
HFA may identify donor prospects for Priorities and provide Priorities with the donors’ contact information. The best echanism for transmitting this information is via a standard template form prepared by HFA and approved by counsel.1 Priorities may also ask HFA to make recommendations on the following topics: (1) whom to solicit; (2) how much to solicit from each donor; and (3) messages to emphasize when soliciting funds. It is important that HFA not take any actions that would confer fundraising authority on Priorities’ staff or consultants; that would take away their ability to raise soft money.
Accordingly, while it is permissible for HFA to relay to Priorities how much it believes a particular donor is willing or able to contribute, HFA should not explicitly request that Priorities raise soft money.
For example: Permissible: “Donor A works in financial services and has been a long-time contributor. I think she’d be willing to do six figures for Priorities.”
Not recommended: “I want you to call Donor A and ask for $250,000.”
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Doug Band <doug@presidentclinton.com> wrote:
> Need get this asap to them although I'm sure cvc won't believe it to be true > bc she doesn't want to > Even though the facts speak for themselves.
> John, I would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions
>
> I'm also starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed. Dk > and I built a business. 65 people work for us who have wives and husbands > and kids, they all depend on us. Our business has almost nothing to do with > the clintons, the foundation or cgi in any way. The chairman of ubs could > care a less about cgi. Our fund clients who we do restructuring and m and a > advising the same just as bhp nor tivo do. These are real companies who we > provide real advice to through very serious people. Comm head for goldman, > dep press secretary to bloomberg, former head of banking, and his team, from > morgan stanley for asia and latin am...
Since a Hillary lapdog stated that people don't know who these people are, (as if that is the fault of anyone but the person who doesn't know who these people are), Doug here was Clinton's chief advisor from 2002-2012. Douglas J. Band | President, Teneo Holdings
For the Hillary lapdogs, I am not allowed to quote the entire emails (many are back and forth for some time), you're going to have to read them yourself, you're going to have to follow the trail yourself.
From:arenteria@hillaryclinton.com
To: tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com
Date: 2015-10-25 21:04
Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
What about broadening the perspectives at that time?
Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s comments on DOMA Carter from my team put together.
*From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM
*To:* Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com>
*Cc:* Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>; Karen Finney < kfinney@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com>;
Heather Stone <hstone@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook < re47@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>;
Jennifer Palmieri <jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; Brian Fallon < bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com>;
Marlon Marshall <mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Tony Carrk < tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>; Brynne Craig <bcraig@hillaryclinton.com>; Sally
Marx <smarx@hillaryclinton.com>; Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>;
John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>; Christina Reynolds < creynolds@hillaryclinton.com>
*Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA
I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it.
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation. This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this. It's better to do nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question again.
Working w Dominic now.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com>
wrote:
I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance.
...
On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dlowell@hillaryclint on.com');>> wrote:
I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic in part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies of the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them. Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC. Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA. Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in the dustbin of history?
Fact Checker
Hillary Clinton’s claim that DOMA had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee October 28, 2015
(Daniel Acker/Bloomberg)
“On Defense of Marriage [Act], I think what my husband believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that. And there wasn’t any rational argument — because I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would — you know, chime in and talk about, ‘You can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.’ But they were. And so, in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further. It was a defensive action.”
–Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, interview on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” Oct. 23, 2015
Gay rights activists who opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, challenged this recent explanation by Clinton, saying it was a revisionist version of what really happened. Maddow asked Clinton whether her approach to civil rights issues were different from her husband’s, as shown by the policies he enacted. Many of the civil rights achievements of the Obama administration were undoing policies under Bill Clinton’s administration for politically practical reasons, Maddow said, such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” mandatory sentencing and DOMA.
Clinton’s response poses a fact-checking conundrum. She is explaining what she thinks her husband believed — entering the realm of opinions and suppositions, not checkable facts.
Anything Hillary has said in response to any question about that was not written or even thought of by Hillary, it was written by her "oh crap you got in to it now" watchers:
Quote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote:
This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place this in a context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both forthrightly explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record, 4) get in a little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking.
STATEMENT In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and why we became strong supporters of marriage equality. Bill, who signed DOMA nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called the law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the Court to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality “personally and as a matter of policy and law.”
As I said then, LGBT Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal rights of citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith.
That’s why, as a Senator, I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build together. I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on Monday just because of who they are and who they love. In this campaign and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for every American.
(Formatting mine, to make it easier to read than a big wall of text.)
If you ever come across video or print of what she's said since then, see if it resembles the above. I wonder...did she give credit to the writer of that speech?
Quote:
On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes on offense...
...On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: From Richard: Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some years later. The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious reservations he expressed at the time...
Shouldn't be signing things if you have reservations about them.
You reallllllly need to read the entire thing, including those people writing the words that Hillary would later speak...not her own words in regards to her "evolution" that no one can prove.
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 10-10-2016 at 11:12 AM..
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.
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.
