Hillary has already "won" the Dem Nomination

[mbrn30000]

Well, (A) My party, the democarts? and (b ) I've never argued that he isn't out of his depth and inept, but then, most of them have been. However, that's a long way from saying that he's the worst there's ever been. For that, his predecessor would take some beating.

they don't remember bush. they have been in a coma since Clinton's impeachment fiasco. I guess that black face woke republicans up. they think Reagan was the last president..they have been zombies for two decades.

[ellapenella]

Edited November 14, 2015 by Ellapennella

[Merc14]

So he was a bad president because there are more idiots with an ® in leadership positions than idiots with a (D)? Seems legit.

Really? Obama had full control of both houses for the majority of his presidency only losing both in 2014 so how did the republicans have more leadership positions than the democrats. Also, the republicans, upon seizing both houses folded and enacted whatever Obama wanted, hence Boehner's unseemly exit from politics with the other POS McConnell soon to follow. The reality is Obama got everything he asked for as president yet failed miserably.

[Merc14]

Well, (A) My party, the democarts? and (b ) I've never argued that he isn't out of his depth and inept, but then, most of them have been. However, that's a long way from saying that he's the worst there's ever been. For that, his predecessor would take some beating.

How do you figure? Once in office Obama continued almost all of the policies his predecessor started and even strengthened many of the more distasteful to the left. His middle east policy is an unqualified disaster of epic proportions and he is a laughingstock to most world leaders (Putin recently referred to him as mush for brains). His apology tour only emboldened the bad actors he was trying to mollify and his adventures in Libya, Egypt and Syria were disastrous for both Europe and he USA.

Your opinions are just that, Norbie, opinions and there is nothing to back them up besides your blinding anger at Bush. It is the facts that count and the facts point to a man, Obama, who was woefully unqualified to be president and whose wacky, progressive policies have done nothing but harm to this country, your party and much of the free world. What kind of a fool piles on more debt than ALL of his predecessors combined and has so little to show for the expenditure? Feel free to compare Bush to Obama but you can end up with only one legitimate conclusion after running the numbers and it won't be the one you want.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Merc14

[Paranormalcy]

The title of this thread is CLEARLY not true anymore.

Hillary is absolutely being HAMMERED by BOTH sides, by Sanders and O'Malley, and EVERY single time she speaks, the live user response percentages hit a MINIMUM of 40% anger to 55%. Almost every thing she says is p***ing people off royally. People have had it with her sh-. She is NOT going to come out of this well, except for being THE choice for the BEST moderate Republican candidate.

Sanders is doing great as usual.

I have NO idea where *this* O'Malley came from, but good on him! He is on FIRE and he is REALLY resounding with people. A 10% third placer in the GOP would be just another crazy mouthbreathing zealout, but in this Dem debate, it's like "What is that? ISSUES? REASON? INTELLIGENTLY ADDRESSING A TOPIC? What sorcery is THIS?!"

Having watched this, I now realize something, about why EVERY GOP debate is hosted on an "insular" platform - you HAVE to have cable or satelite, and most of them, premium FOX channels at that. I thought at first it was just because they're greedy b*******. But now I'm sure it's even worse than that. The GOP are actively and in a shameful display of deception, HIDING the GOP from the large voting public. The people at large would scream in outrage if they could actually SEE the people being obscured behind the paywalls of FOX and the GOP. They KNOW people will not be having a BIT of their hate and religious fanatism and phobias of everything.

[Frank Merton]

Hey Frank, it isn't the republicans investigating Hillary, it s the FBI and it isn't a witch hunt it is a criminal investigation that has just been widened as more violations have come to light. As I said, please educate yourself before making ignorant comments. Norbert, even democrats are laughing at you.

I never said it was a witch hunt. Democrats are not laughing at me; they are saying what I say. I think it was a mistake for her to do it, in fact she has said as much. Doesn't seem much harm was done although it is appropriate for the FBI to check and make sure. You are blowing it way out of proportion because of your political agenda, and I think in the end this sort of mudslinging backfires -- at least I would hope it would.

[Frank Merton]

Sanders is an unknown taking this opportunity to change this. He's an opportunist, but then all politicians are. Clinton does have this problem that both he and the republicans are constantly saying ugly things about her -- mostly mud -- that is one of the things wrong with American politics and the main reason so large a portion of the population has lost interest in government -- they become persuaded, with all the mud flying about, that no one in office is any good.

[Merc14]

The title of this thread is CLEARLY not true anymore.

Hillary is absolutely being HAMMERED by BOTH sides, by Sanders and O'Malley, and EVERY single time she speaks, the live user response percentages hit a MINIMUM of 40% anger to 55%. Almost every thing she says is p***ing people off royally. People have had it with her sh-. She is NOT going to come out of this well, except for being THE choice for the BEST moderate Republican candidate.

Sanders is doing great as usual.

I have NO idea where *this* O'Malley came from, but good on him! He is on FIRE and he is REALLY resounding with people. A 10% third placer in the GOP would be just another crazy mouthbreathing zealout, but in this Dem debate, it's like "What is that? ISSUES? REASON? INTELLIGENTLY ADDRESSING A TOPIC? What sorcery is THIS?!"

Having watched this, I now realize something, about why EVERY GOP debate is hosted on an "insular" platform - you HAVE to have cable or satelite, and most of them, premium FOX channels at that. I thought at first it was just because they're greedy b*******. But now I'm sure it's even worse than that. The GOP are actively and in a shameful display of deception, HIDING the GOP from the large voting public. The people at large would scream in outrage if they could actually SEE the people being obscured behind the paywalls of FOX and the GOP. They KNOW people will not be having a BIT of their hate and religious fanatism and phobias of everything.

This is, by far the most, ridiculous thing I have read on this thread. I hesitate to say more because you may be joking but knowing you, I don't think so. If you are serious, all I can say is knowing that people like you are on the other side makes me feel really, really good about the future. Really good. Thanks for making my night because delusional diatribes like yours means your side is doomed in a real world.

[Merc14]

I never said it was a witch hunt. Democrats are not laughing at me; they are saying what I say. I think it was a mistake for her to do it, in fact she has said as much. Doesn't seem much harm was done although it is appropriate for the FBI to check and make sure. You are blowing it way out of proportion because of your political agenda, and I think in the end this sort of mudslinging backfires -- at least I would hope it would.

She broke the law to cover her ass. Period. General Petraeus, ion April 23, 2015, plead guilty to felony charges for much less than what she has done. It is very likely that our Ambassador's position in Libya was hacked from Hillary's illegal server and while people like paranormalcy, ninja and gromodor don't care about that, most Americans do and they are voting that way. Your bias is nauseating and your inability to see it is even worse and 70% of Americans polled see Hilary as a liar and dishonest so maybe you should reevaluate.

BTW, paranormalcy, they ended the debate 7 minutes early because it was BORING and NO ONE was watching. Know why? They didn't ask anything worth listening to. God forbid they ask Hillary about the many criminal probes she is now undergoing. Hey man, glad you are in the other side and keep it up and guess what, no one cares who is running on the dem side because only people like you are going to vote for them no matter what happens but no one else cares. Stand by for worse than 2014.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Merc14

[Space Commander Travis]

How do you figure? Once in office Obama continued almost all of the policies his predecessor started and even strengthened many of the more distasteful to the left. His middle east policy is an unqualified disaster of epic proportions and he is a laughingstock to most world leaders (Putin recently referred to him as mush for brains). His apology tour only emboldened the bad actors he was trying to mollify and his adventures in Libya, Egypt and Syria were disastrous for both Europe and he USA.

Your opinions are just that, Norbie, opinions and there is nothing to back them up besides your blinding anger at Bush. It is the facts that count and the facts point to a man, Obama, who was woefully unqualified to be president and whose wacky, progressive policies have done nothing but harm to this country, your party and much of the free world. What kind of a fool piles on more debt than ALL of his predecessors combined and has so little to show for the expenditure? Feel free to compare Bush to Obama but you can end up with only one legitimate conclusion after running the numbers and it won't be the one you want.

Well, I think there is justification for anger at Bush, considering that, even if you do not regard all the people who died as a direct consequence of the wars that he initiated as being worth making a fuss about, it was his creation of the vacuum of power in Iraq that allowed what we now know as ISIS to develop, but then, it was Obama's participation in the destruction of Libya (egged on by H. Clinton), (even if he wasn't the principal ringleader behind that, D. Cameron and N. Sarkozy sharing equal blame), and his fixation with overthrowing "Assad's Vile Regime" and looking the other way to whatever saudi Arabia does that enabled them to become a significant force. So they really are pretty well equally to blame, although perhaps the fault with Obama's is more not really having any clue what to do rather than a deliberate plan.

[Frank Merton]

Americans are too impatient and too demanding. The invasion of Iraq and the destabilization of Libya were both successes. They did not create Western democracies, but was that really to be expected? Bush erred seriously in declaring victory when in fact things were not settled, and the allies also erred in removing all the Iraqi government structure, although that was mainly in deference to Saudi demands. Still, things turned out reasonably well. Iraq is producing oil and a brutal, dangerous regime is gone and the oil all over the area is safer. Not perfect, by a long shot, but not all that bad either. With Libya, things have yet to settle down, but it will work out if the West keeps a fairly steady course for a few more years.

I would say things have been messed up in Syria, but now it seems Russia will go in there and rescue the West, and probably not let the previous regime have its way (except by appearances) -- they are already talking about a new Constitution (code for new regime). ISIS is essentially drawn from previous criminal elements, not ideologues as so often portrayed, and uses terror and brutality to maintain power in its areas, and will be slaughtered, now that they have gotten the Western governments unified on that objective -- just as 9-11 served for the catalyst to invade Iraq.

It is a commentary on democracies that it takes disasters to get them to spend money and soldiers' lives -- and then of course it costs more of both than it would if they had acted before the disaster.

[Goodnite]

My choice would be any of the GOP that wants to shrink the government to the year 1900 levels. No EPA, HUD, IRS, NPR, etc. With a 17 TRILLION dollar debt. Cutbacks MUST be made. It's a question of states being allowed to set their own policies and regulations. Call me a decentralist.

[Frank Merton]

My choice would be any of the GOP that wants to shrink the government to the year 1900 levels. No EPA, HUD, IRS, NPR, etc. With a 17 TRILLION dollar debt. Cutbacks MUST be made. It's a question of states being allowed to set their own policies and regulations. Call me a decentralist.

I have to say that this is just silly. The issue of states rights was settled with the Civil War and the nation will not go back any more than you can put the yolk back in an egg after you've fried it.

[mbrn30000]

My choice would be any of the GOP that wants to shrink the government to the year 1900 levels. No EPA, HUD, IRS, NPR, etc. With a 17 TRILLION dollar debt. Cutbacks MUST be made. It's a question of states being allowed to set their own policies and regulations. Call me a decentralist.

See this is what is wrong with the teaparty and gop people. you hate the alphabet no matter what the letters stand for. Do away with the EPA is just stupid. We use to have rivers catching fire, we had love canal, the air quality in Denver during the winter, and LA all year was deadly. The annual budge for the EPA is about 8 billion. You want to live in a country without EPA go to China. Their rivers are polluted and their population walks around with face masks.

NPR less than 5% of the NPR's $153 million budget comes from federal and state money. You just perceive it as liberal and want to shut it up.

HUD is a big animal and I would reform them. I think their intentions are good, but there is no bang for the buck. I definitely would consider merging them back into Commerce or Labor.

IRS well everyone hates the IRS. The problem with the GOP is they spend too much time trying to scare people with social issues and nonsense about NPR and EPA. And the mythical foreign aid thing which is a myth.

The biggest part of that debt is entitlements and parts of the budget that is committed. Romney could fund NPR with the taxes he avoided based on the tax loopholes for partners in hedgefunds. their income is declared long term capital gains by virtue of a law hidden in the volumes of tax codes. Hardly the intent of encouraging long term capital investments. It is just a scam bought and paid for.

We need many federal agencies but I do hate the words so often coming out of the mouths of democratic candidates "we need a program" No we do no need a program, we need a real solution.

But do not pretend you know what you are talking about. NPR and EPA do not need to go away and would not do a tinker's damn to fix this country.

Edited November 15, 2015 by mbrn30000

[ellapenella]

When in the debate Hillary said that she was in favor of helping the moderates in Syria , I'm guessing that she means the people of Syria that were shot down and killed by their President "Assad" - I agree with her on that. He didn't allow for a peaceful protest ? He shot at them ? I could never imagine living under a government that would shoot down peaceful protesting of the people voicing their concerns of living conditions because of a governments corruption ? This is why I would never trust a government that didn't allow their people to protect themselves from tyranny , if ever it came down to it.

ETA - I'm for Bernie or Rand.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Ellapennella

[Merc14]

Well, I think there is justification for anger at Bush, considering that, even if you do not regard all the people who died as a direct consequence of the wars that he initiated as being worth making a fuss about, it was his creation of the vacuum of power in Iraq that allowed what we now know as ISIS to develop, but then, it was Obama's participation in the destruction of Libya (egged on by H. Clinton), (even if he wasn't the principal ringleader behind that, D. Cameron and N. Sarkozy sharing equal blame), and his fixation with overthrowing "Assad's Vile Regime" and looking the other way to whatever saudi Arabia does that enabled them to become a significant force. So they really are pretty well equally to blame, although perhaps the fault with Obama's is more not really having any clue what to do rather than a deliberate plan.

I am not supporting the second war in Iraq as it was ultimately a failure but the vacuum of power in Iraq happened when Obama, against the universal advice of the military and most senior diplomats, pulled ALL US forces out of the country. The collapse occurred shortly thereafter and the ISIS "JV Team" (Obama's words) grew like a cancer. As far as all the other players in Obama's multitude of foreign relations disasters all I can say is please, he is the US president and his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the stuff that books will be written about.

I know that Bush hatred will never go away as it was too well ingrained by the media during his presidency (remember when the headline stating that a GDP growth rate of 5.5% was the worst in the nation's history, LMAO) but Obama has had 7 yeasr to "fix things" but by almost every measure he has not fixed anything and in many cases made things much worse. Defending him is thankless job as you, literally, have no ammunition so good luck.

[mbrn30000]

Bush neglect caused the collapse of the economy. Allowing the trading of junk derivatives based on flawed mortgages sold off as investment grade was a fiasco that only bush's hooverist SEC and DOJ can be blamed. Obama is not a miracle worker. And it is not a media driven hate of bush. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war we should never have fought in Iraq and probably not even Afghanistan. If the Cheney Inc, had not been so interested in gaining a pipeline deal with the Taliban and the neocons so interested in starting a war in Iraq to steal their oil I doubt 9-11 would have happened. Bush apologists be damned.

Edited November 15, 2015 by mbrn30000

[Space Commander Travis]

I am not supporting the second war in Iraq as it was ultimately a failure but the vacuum of power in Iraq happened when Obama, against the universal advice of the military and most senior diplomats, pulled ALL US forces out of the country. The collapse occurred shortly thereafter and the ISIS "JV Team" (Obama's words) grew like a cancer. As far as all the other players in Obama's multitude of foreign relations disasters all I can say is please, he is the US president and his support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is the stuff that books will be written about.

I know that Bush hatred will never go away as it was too well ingrained by the media during his presidency (remember when the headline stating that a GDP growth rate of 5.5% was the worst in the nation's history, LMAO) but Obama has had 7 yeasr to "fix things" but by almost every measure he has not fixed anything and in many cases made things much worse. Defending him is thankless job as you, literally, have no ammunition so good luck.

I wish people could take the blinkers off sometimes. At least 3/4 of what i said there was critical of the Big O. It was defending him insofar as it was arguing that the mistakes he's made have been more because he's been hapless and inept rather than outright evil, perhaps.

[+DieChecker]

Bush neglect caused the collapse of the economy. Allowing the trading of junk derivatives based on flawed mortgages sold off as investment grade was a fiasco that only bush's hooverist SEC and DOJ can be blamed. Obama is not a miracle worker. And it is not a media driven hate of bush. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war we should never have fought in Iraq and probably not even Afghanistan. If the Cheney Inc, had not been so interested in gaining a pipeline deal with the Taliban and the neocons so interested in starting a war in Iraq to steal their oil I doubt 9-11 would have happened. Bush apologists be damned.

I thought those junk derivatives and junk mortgages were due to Clinton era legislation? Bill signed those Regulations into law.

[+DieChecker]

440 of the 713 super delegates have pledged, either openly or secretly, support for Hillary according to her staff. http://www.politicus...te-pledges.html Apparently it is a pretty big deal as these SD's are, in many cases. party leaders and power brokers. Obama and Shrillary battled over them in 2008 and it became big news which is why I am even aware of them. https://en.wikipedia...i/Superdelegate

Still like has been said... Obama came onto the scene in 2008 and scooped up many of those SDs that were "dedicated" to Hillary. Those guys aren't locked in till they actually vote at the convention. Till then they can swing toward different candidates, but they are not bound to vote for anyone.

I usually don't reply to you (have your DA on ignore) but so this inananity so though Id ask this question: So the fact that your party has lost 68 of 98 state chambers and 33 or 50 governorships and both the house and the senate means people are sick of republican antics?

I have to agree, the numbers show clearly that the Public is swinging back toward Conservatism, which on the Federal level means the GOP. I posted the other day that Minnisota, which historically goes Blue, is trending more Red then Blue so far...

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/#MN

[mbrn30000]

I thought those junk derivatives and junk mortgages were due to Clinton era legislation? Bill signed those Regulations into law.

You really not up on what happened in the 08 crisis are you? I guess that's why when republicans say we got too much regulations on the banks you agree. I would explain it to you, but it would be over your head.

[+DieChecker]

You really not up on what happened in the 08 crisis are you? I guess that's why when republicans say we got too much regulations on the banks you agree. I would explain it to you, but it would be over your head.

I know what YOU think happened and I know what really happened...

[Gromdor]

I'm just glad that he didn't manage to privatize social security before the big crash.

[mbrn30000]

I know what YOU think happened and I know what really happened...

if you did you wouldn't say the things you say. why is it that no matter when a good thing happens it's because of republicans and no matter when a bad thing happens its because of democrats...according to republicans anyway. bush was on watch and he failed. I am sure you don't understand any of what happened because fox news did not explain it to you.

[+DieChecker]

I'm just glad that he didn't manage to privatize social security before the big crash.

That was lucky. I was actually in favor of that, but in retrospect, it was not such a good idea.