HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Seeinghope » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:03 PM
Number of posts: 786

Journal Archives


Which means the media will hand the win to Clinton


Hillary is really using Obama to gain support for herself. She is trying to take credit on all of

Record....like she was standing there with him for 8 years, working with him. What a bunch of b.s. She puts herself with President Obama on everything, not and Bernie Sanders as the enemy of them both! Slime ..she is using the President Obama to prop her up and shield her!

Clinton wins; Congress stays same or worsens; gridlock. Sanders wins sweeping changes

Say Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. She will motivate every Republican to vote for the Republican candidate for President for every Republican Senator and Congressman running. Sanders wins the Presidency. He will motivate the Democrats AND Independents as well as new voters to vote for Senators and Congress.

This is just fact. Sanders attracts the Independent vote and has attracted the mellenial vote already...new voters. He will be a sure winner. Hillary Clinton not so much. She will drive all of the Republicans to vote. She won't get many millenials or Independents. She doesn't get the same enthusiasm.. Look at her rallies. How many new voters is she attracting or bring into the party?

When it comes to the Congessmen and Senators the same thing applies, Clinton won't get near as many of the millenials or Independents whereas Sanders will. He has proven how motivating he is. He will not only pick up the vote from the Democrats that would normally vote but many new voters. This is what we need. This is what Bernie Sanders can do for us and only Bernie Sanders.

Seriously, why does Hillary Clinton need to have "white noise"?

What I are people not supposed to hear?

BREAKING: Colorado Democratic Party Admits Error, Bernie Sanders Could Win Majority Of Delegates

This election has so far seen a variety of caucus-related issues, primarily, it seems, on the Democratic side. Another such case, this time regarding the Colorado caucus, has just been revealed, thanks to reporting by The Denver Post. On April 12, the Colorado Democratic Party admitted to miscounting the results in ten percent of the state’s precincts in caucus. The Denver Post discussed in detail the potential consequences

‘The mistake is a minor shift with major implications. The new projection now shows the Vermont senator winning 39 delegates in Colorado, compared to 27 for Clinton.

Even if Clinton wins all 12 superdelegates in the state, Sanders can finish no worse than a split decision. The new count contrasts with prior projections from The Post, Bloomberg Politics and The Associated Press that indicated Clinton would probably win the majority of the 78 delegates in Colorado because of her support from party leaders with superdelegate status.

If Sanders lands one Colorado superdelegate — two are still undecided and others are facing significant pressure — he could win the state’s delegation.’

What is most controversial about this issue isn’t the fact that a mistake was made, but the fact that a mistake was made and the Colorado Democratic Party tried to cover it up rather than fix it. The Sanders campaign was not informed about the miscount, while the Clinton campaign was.

Rick Palacio, Democratic Party Chairman, said that he didn’t tell the Sanders campaign about the discrepenacy “because it didn’t necessarily affect (them). It was our mistake that ended up affecting the estimation of Hillary’s campaign.”

Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager, commented on the new information, “We are obviously pleased to essentially narrow the delegate lead by two delegates, one up and one down, it’s a zero sum game.” He also added that it is “certainly disturbing that that information gets sent to one campaign and not to another.”

There were also issues on the Republican side, with Donald Trump and his supporters complaining about a “rigged” system after he lost to Senator Ted Cruz. While Trump could just be a sore loser, the fact of the matter is that caucuses are notoriously chaotic, therefore making it easier for mistakes to occur.

Something positive coming from this scandal, which Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio called “an embarrassment,” is the fact that it provides yet another reason for states like Colorado to move from caucuses to primaries. According to The Denver Post, there is already a push to make the switch:

‘The double-barrel controversies regarding Colorado’s caucus system will only reinforce calls for the state to move to a primary vote that allows more transparency and participation among voters who felt left out of the complicated process.’


Bipartisan Report

Hillary Clinton receives a massive donation $353,400.00 by Walmart heiress

Hillary sat on the Board of Director of Wallmart from 1986 to 1992 and was silent while Wallmart fought off Labor Unions

Hillary Clinton Received a Massive Donation From Walmart Heiress
Walmart stands out for its oppressive labor practices and corporate greed.
By Marlena Fitzpatrick García / AlterNet April 11, 2016

Walmart workers picket for higher pay.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance records show the wealthy Walmart heiress, Alice Walton, donated $353,400 to Clinton’s “Victory Fund.” The six-figure donation contrasts Clinton’s campaign messaging as a workers’ ally. Walmart stands out for its oppressive labor practices and corporate greed behavior. Before that Alice Walton contributed $25,000 to the Ready for Hillary political action committee.

The former first lady and secretary of state has been endorsed by multiple labor unions including Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the National Education Association (NEA).

“One of the greatest issues of the coming election for president of the United States and perhaps the most burning issue for progressives in this nation is the involvement of corporate money and how it corrupts the system,” the Daily Kos said in a January article titled "Hillary, Walmart and the Revolving Door.”

Unlike many other elected officials, Clinton has refused to publicly denounce Walmart over the company’s pay scale and anti-union policies. She gave her critics ammunition when campaign treasurer Jose Villarreal attended a fundraiser discussion and dinner hosted by Ivan Zapien, Walmart's vice president of corporate affairs in Mexico. Zapien, who previously served as the company’s top lobbyist in Washington, maxed out in personal contributions to Clinton's campaign last year.

Bernie Sanders has called out the Walton heirs and Walmart’s labor practices as a prime example of how greedy corporate behavior harms workers and costs billions in tax dollars. Forbes estimates that despite Walmart being one of the wealthiest corporations in history, the company costs taxpayers roughly $6.2 billion per year due to substandard wages. As a result, many workers depend on public assistance to meet basic needs.

“Today Walmart is the largest private sector employer in America. Yet many, many of their employees are forced to go on food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing that you pay for through your taxes because the Walton family refuses to pay their workers a living wage,” Sanders said.

Hillary is this out of touch: The Democratic frontrunner doesn’t understand economic struggle — and

Never will"

".....Clinton wants cash-strapped students to believe she's been in their shoes.Hillary Clinton made this statement at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn.

"I went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund, making about $14,000 a year, so I couldn’t afford some big student loan payment every month.”

Talks about how she had to struggle living on $14,000.00 a year as a young struggling post grad, Which is equivalent to $74,464 according to the Burea of Statistics. which would place her in the upper 8%of today's income distribution..."

Salon. April 10

$165 B arms sales to foreign countries by Secretary of State after donations to Clinton Foundation

The cash donations Hillary simply has no answer for. Salon

Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Federal law designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals — and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton’s State Department did a whole lot of approving.

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton’s three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation — and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton — also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments’ human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

As just one of many examples, in its 2011 Human Rights Report, Clinton’s State Department slammed Algeria’s government for imposing “restrictions on freedom of assembly and association,” tolerating “arbitrary killing,” “widespread corruption” and a “lack of judicial independence.”

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton’s State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment.” The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar said the Clinton Foundation should stop accepting foreign government money. He warned that if it didn’t, “foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.”

The Clintons did not take his advice. Advocates for limits on the political influence of money now say that Lugar was prescient.

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center.

While these arms deals may seem like ancient history, Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, says they “raise a fundamental question of judgment” — one that is relevant to the 2016 presidential campaign.

“Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise?” he said. “And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

Hillary wins: Impeachment not far behind

Everyone knows about visceral hatred of the Clintons from the Republicans. They will go full force against her. All you have to do is read DU to see how much there will be to use against her. Nothing will get done in Washington AGAIN because of all of the scandals that will be investigated. Unless there is orders to lay off the Clintons from the powers that be we will all be revisiting the wonderful 90's. Except the it won't be Bill and his sexcapades it will be much more serious.

I wonder if Ken Starr is still alive.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »