I think the democrats had better find another candidate.   This book is being characterized by non-right-wing sources as serious journalism. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/pol...-news&_r=0

 

 

---

2016 is looking an awful lot like 2008 in regards that one party is running a primary for the White House the other seems content to just concede the White House

---

2016 is looking an awful lot like 2008 in regards that one party is running a primary for the White House the other seems content to just concede the White House

 

Political parties are like football teams in that they need depth.   Where is the depth in the Democratic party?   It's amazing that they have no other candidates.  

---

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/18/us/top...all&src=pm

 

This is how you launder a bribe.  

 

Your client is the the most powerful business in the state, Tyson Foods.   They need to get some influence over the new Governor.   So you go to the new First Lady of the state and say, "You should get into the cattle futures market.   Give me $1,000 to start your account."  

 

Then you go and make some bets on cattle futures.   Winning bets are assigned to the First Lady, while losing bets are assigned to Tyson Foods.  You cover your tracks by filtering some losing bets into the First Lady's account, so the account goes up and down, up and down.   From a $1,000 starting position, the First Lady winds up with $100,000.   She just got lucky, right? 

---

Lets talk about what is important. What did she get at Chipotle?

---

Lets talk about what is important. What did she get at Chipotle?

 

No she carried her own bags that's whats important!

---

2016 is looking an awful lot like 2008 in regards that one party is running a primary for the White House the other seems content to just concede the White House

I don't see it that way at all.


Neither party really has all their ducks in a row.  The Democrats have Hillary as the forerunner, though she's got a lot of questions to answer for.  Which means a challenger can easily overtake her.  On the other side... the Republicans don't really have a frontrunner.  Only Rand Paul (who has flip flopped on TPP), Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have really announced anything yet.  Hillary has many questions to answer, and the Republicans lack a superstar.  I think this election is pretty much unlike anything we've seen in a while.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't see it that way at all.


Neither party really has all their ducks in a row. The Democrats have Hillary as the forerunner, though she's got a lot of questions to answer for. Which means a challenger can easily overtake her. On the other side... the Republicans don't really have a frontrunner. Only Rand Paul (who has flip flopped on TPP), Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have really announced anything yet. Hillary has many questions to answer, and the Republicans lack a superstar. I think this election is pretty much unlike anything we've seen in a while.

Hilary is the democratic nominee much like in 2008 it was McCain as the republican nominee. Both parts of the old guard and the party will pretty much pave the way through the primary.


The winner of the democratic primary was going to be president in 2008 no way around it. Much like the winner of the GOP primary will be president this time around, the countries sick of the Clinton and Bushes. The only way Hillary wins is if the GOP nominates Jeb Bush

---

Hilary is the democratic nominee much like in 2008 it was McCain as the republican nominee. Both parts of the old guard and the party will pretty much pave the way through the primary.


The winner of the democratic primary was going to be president in 2008 no way around it. Much like the winner of the GOP primary will be president this time around, the countries sick of the Clinton and Bushes. The only way Hillary wins is if the GOP nominates Jeb Bush

 

I don't know.  I've seen national polls where Hillary is leading most Republican candidates.  There are still people who remember Clinton fondly as well.  I don't think it's cut and dry for either side.  Republicans also have to avoid making the mistake the democrats made in 2004 (when everyone was already tired of Bush) -- complacency.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't know.  I've seen national polls where Hillary is leading most Republican candidates.  There are still people who remember Clinton fondly as well.  I don't think it's cut and dry for either side.  Republicans also have to avoid making the mistake the democrats made in 2004 (when everyone was already tired of Bush) -- complacency.  

 

since the 1900's you've had a change of party in the white house every third elections with the two exceptions being FDR having 4 consecutive terms and Bush SR winning after 2 Regan Terms. Other then that it's pretty much Democrats for 2 terms, Republicans for 2 terms rinse lather and repeat.

---

since the 1900's you've had a change of party in the white house every third elections with the two exceptions being FDR having 4 consecutive terms and Bush SR winning after 2 Regan Terms. Other then that it's pretty much Democrats for 2 terms, Republicans for 2 terms rinse lather and repeat.

You also have Harding/Coolidge + Hoover.  Not to mention that the 1900's began with McKinley/Roosevelt + Taft.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

And, here is an article by the Washington Post.  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/f...story.html

 

The mainstream media is all over this story.   First the New York Times, now the Washington Post.  

---

And here's another one by the New York Times.   This is why I love the NY Times: they are one of the last news organizations to do real investigative journalism. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cas...v=top-news

 

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

 

<p class=""> 

<p class=""> 

<p class="">Folks, this isn't Fox News reporting this, it's the NEW YORK TIMES!

---

Hilary Joe Biden is the democratic nominee much like in 2008 it was McCain as the republican nominee. Both parts of the old guard and the party will pretty much pave the way through the primary.


The winner of the democratic primary was going to be president in 2008 no way around it. 

 

 

FTFY, Hillary! is getting into "fatally flawed" territory now.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Don't doubt the power of the Clinton's I just don't see how even with all the dirt she isn't the nominee. I mean it's not like anyone really believed the Clinton's where clean before.

---

Don't doubt the power of the Clinton's I just don't see how even with all the dirt she isn't the nominee. I mean it's not like anyone really believed the Clinton's where clean before.

 

I think Barry is going to let his disdain for them allow the DOJ to pursue these latest criminal acts. Evil always turns upon itself after all.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Don't doubt the power of the Clinton's I just don't see how even with all the dirt she isn't the nominee. I mean it's not like anyone really believed the Clinton's where clean before.

 

I tend to agree. Many potential Clinton voters have too much invested emotionally with the whole idea Hilary represents to desert her now.

 

And I think some are giving "the mainstream media" way too much credit. Now they matter? 

 

Most people have formed their opinions re Clinton. She's not a newcomer to the scene. Those on the right will believe every word of the story while those on the left will see it as a predictable hatchet job.

 

I think the right is doing a lot of wishful thinking here. You don't tend to win elections by trying to convince voters that your candidate is not quite a bad as the opponent.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I tend to agree. Many potential Clinton voters have too much invested emotionally with the whole idea Hilary represents to desert her now.

 

And I think some are giving "the mainstream media" way too much credit. Now they matter? 

 

Most people have formed their opinions re Clinton. She's not a newcomer to the scene. Those on the right will believe every word of the story while those on the left will see it as a predictable hatchet job.

 

I think the right is doing a lot of wishful thinking here. You don't tend to win elections by trying to convince voters that your candidate is not quite a bad as the opponent.

 

That's how they lost the 2012 election, Mitt Romney just ran on I'm not Obama.

---

Interesting:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...-bush-next

 

His next target is Jeb Bush.

---

That's how they lost the 2012 election, Mitt Romney just ran on I'm not Obama.

 

Mitt Romney was basically the John Kerry of the Republican party.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke.