Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 39. (Read 234741 times)

The super-delegates are supposed to split themselves in a way, so as to represent the popular vote. It is not mandatory, but it is something which they are expected to do. If Sanders is able to pull in a few more upsets, like the one he pulled out in New Hampshire, then I strongly suspect that many of these super-delegates will be forced to rethink on their loyalties.

I don´t know; anything is possible but I doubt that this woman will last into the summer in the race. It´s just an awful sell. Twenty years ago, even ten it´d maybe have been possible with garbage media and other garbage having any influence to speak of. Now, with all the information dissemination it just doesn´t work. And of course the supply of gullible idiots, airheads with the attention span of a housefly and psychopaths to support this fruitcake isn´t enough.

DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists







The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.

“It is a major step in the wrong direction,” said longtime reform advocate Fred Wertheimer. “And it is completely out of touch with the clear public rejection of the role of political money in Washington,” expressed during the 2016 campaign.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

no worries, I constantly hear how people will not vote for Clinton because she is shady and they cannot trust her whilst they will vote for Bernie because of his honesty and integrity.

It's the corrupt, they want a corrupt person like them in the Whitehouse.
Terrible isn't it, make me puke, what is wrong with supposed  normal people? why are they brainwashed like this.
Is something wrong with them, how can they not see.

Jake Tapper’s interview with the DNC Chair on superdelegates and the train wreck that followed



[...]

    TAPPER: What do you tell voters who are new to the process who say this makes them feel like it’s all rigged?

    WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ: Let me just make sure I can clarify what was available during the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. The unpledged delegates are a separate category. The only thing available on the ballot in a primary and a caucus is the pledged delegates, those that are tied to the candidate that they are pledged to support and they receive a proportional number of delegates going into our convention.

    Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists. We are, as a Democratic Party, really highlight and emphasize inclusiveness and diversity at our convention and we want to give every opportunity to grassroots activists and diverse committed Democrats to be able to participate, attend and be a delegate at the convention and so we separate out those unpledged delegates to make sure that there isn’t competition between them.

    TAPPER: I’m not sure that that answer would satisfy an anxious, young voter but let’s move on.


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/12/jake-tappers-interview-with-the-dnc-chair-on-superdelegates-and-the-train-wreck-that-followed/

Your talking about the people that are placed there so she wins.  If she does happen to get in the White House that proves to me that the system really is rigged.  And I do not care what anyone says or how you can try to explain how the system is.

To may people are against her and with what her proven track record is like there should be no way she can get in the White House. 

In Democratic Debate, Hillary Clinton Paints Bernie Sanders’s Plans as Unrealistic

MILWAUKEE — Hillary Clinton, scrambling to recover from her double-digit defeat in the New Hampshire primary, repeatedly challenged the trillion-dollar policy plans of Bernie Sanders at their presidential debate on Thursday night and portrayed him as a big talker who needed to “level” with voters about the difficulty of accomplishing his agenda.

Foreign affairs also took on unusual prominence as Mrs. Clinton sought to underscore her experience and Mr. Sanders excoriated her judgment on Libya and Iraq, as well as her previous praise of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. But Mrs. Clinton was frequently on the offensive as well, seizing an opportunity to talk about leaders she admired and turning it against Mr. Sanders by bashing his past criticism of President Obama — a remark that Mr. Sanders called a “low blow.”

With tensions between the two Democrats becoming increasingly obvious, the debate was full of new lines of attack from Mrs. Clinton, who faces pressure to puncture Mr. Sanders’s growing popularity before the next nominating contests in Nevada and South Carolina.

She is wagering that even voters excited by Mr. Sanders’s inspiring message will reconsider their support when they learn of his lack of experience in foreign policy and his vague explanations for how he will pay for his expansive government programs.

Mrs. Clinton pounced from the start, after Mr. Sanders demurred in saying how much his proposals would increase the size of the federal government. She stepped in and said that by economists’ estimates, the government would grow 40 percent under Mr. Sanders.

And rather than bashing him as she did at their debate last Thursday, she appeared to try to get under his skin by implying that he had not been transparent about the cost of his programs, such as his proposed expansion of government health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/politics/democratic-debate.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

So, Hillary is presently ahead 394-42. It´s those super delegates. The house always wins I guess. And it´s a freakin reality show anyway.

I haven't seen much of the debate but from the highlight reels twas ugly.
$1 e-mails

I didnt watch it but does that happen to be tonight debate against Sanders?   LOL

She copied almost everything he said.  He would say one thing and she would copy but change a few points.  Its like she doesn't even have her own ideas.

I mean her platforms are just norms so i guess lets just see?

Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Official: Top Clinton aides also handled ‘top secret’ intel on server | Fox News



EXCLUSIVE: At least a dozen email accounts handled the “top secret” intelligence that was found on Hillary Clinton’s server and recently deemed too damaging for national security to release, a U.S. government official close to the review told Fox News. 

The official said the accounts include not only Clinton’s but those of top aides – including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines – as well as State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and others.  There is no public evidence they were authorized to receive the intelligence some of which was beyond Top Secret.

A second source not authorized to speak on the record said the number of accounts involved could be as high as 30 and reflects how the intelligence was broadly shared, replied to, and copied to individuals using the unsecured server.

“My contacts with former colleagues and current active duty personnel involved in sensitive programs reveal a universal feeling that the HRC issue is more serious than the general public realizes,”  Dan Maguire,  a former strategic  planner with Africom, and with 46 years combined service, told Fox.  “Most opine they would already be behind bars if they had apparently compromised sensitive information as reported.”

Without access to the actual e-mails, Maguire said it was hard to ascertain what damage might have been done by the disclosure of human spying intelligence and secret material.

“Either way, the intelligence community is undoubtedly conducting damage assessments and evaluating the viability of any ongoing operation that may have been exposed to unauthorized personnel. The vulnerability of HRC’s server to foreign government hacking cannot be overlooked - even the DCI, John Brennan, has been the target of hackers,” he said.

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey told Fox, “It is counterintuitive to suggest that they (Clinton’s aides) all had authorization and access through a non-secure server to information of that sensitivity.” 

The State Department recently confirmed that the messages in question include the most sensitive kind of intelligence. On Jan. 29, Fox News first reported that some emails on Clinton’s server were too damaging to release in any form. The State Department subsequently announced that 22 “top secret” emails were being withheld in full; these were the messages being handled by more than a dozen accounts.

Pressed on whether a damage assessment was being done, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner said, “To your broader question – what is being done to -- as you said spillage – I can’t speak to those efforts today. We’re aware obviously of those concerns.  We are taking steps, but I don’t have any more details to provide.”

Aside from this week’s letter confirming the FBI investigation is focused on Clinton’s server, the Bureau has not publicly acknowledged whom it has contracted or interviewed.

Kennedy recently told the House Benghazi Select Committee that he knew about Clinton's personal email from the beginning, but did not understand the "scope" of its use for Clinton’s government business.   

Kennedy's testimony now appears to conflict with emails released through the Freedom of Information Act that show he routinely sent and received government business from the Clintonemail.com account.

Toner said Kennedy learned about Clinton’s arrangement later. “He did not have knowledge of the computer server that she had set up [for] personal email or computer server she'd set up at her residence,” he said.

However, on the official State Department website, Patrick F. Kennedy’s biography says that he has worked for the department since 1993 and, in his current position as Under Secretary for Management,  he is responsible for the “people, resources, budget, facilities, technology, financial operations, consular affairs, logistics, contracting, and security for Department of State operations.”


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/10/sources-at-least-dozen-email-accounts-handled-top-secret-intel-on-clinton-server.html

im not gay but I love you.    lol.   You put the whole democratic part in one paragraph.

I am neither dem or rep but I do like a little of both sides.  Policy wise.  but I do have to say i lean way more towards rep then dem.  I hate Hillary.  Seems like dem talks so much about policies that support Obama and what he has dont (mainly Hillary).

The issues dem are talking about are important but not as important as some of the others that rep are talking about.  Would be nice to have them work together but we all know that isnt going to happen.

Be honest I really hope Trump wins all this.  He different then most.  Really curious to see what he would do when or if he gets in the White House.

I never support. American Presidential Elections are nothing more than a waste of time and money on pathetic, useless campaigns. Hilary Clinton should retire, stay at home and do some knitting.

It doesn't matter if she's trustworthy or not. Clinton is going to win the democratic ticket because misguided college kids, fags, feminist bitches, niggers and wetbacks love her. That pretty much makes up the entire Democratic Party. Republicans can win the presidency if they can figure out how to hold the election on the day of the month democrats get their food stamps and WIC. That way democrats won't show up to vote because they'll be too busy ransacking their local grocery store. LOL

12 years ago, Clinton won New Hampshire without attacking Obama and without recruiting help to brand women into hell bound herd.

I guess we can never really know until we try. But are we seriously considering Trump? No i dont think so.

But I believe Hilary is no different from Bush or Obama, these 3 love wars and interfering in other countries by putting their own countries safety at risk. So, I not ready to trust Hillary Clinton this time.