The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
The repealing of glass-stegall (more in retrospect), and ken starr.
We all should revisit that story. The Starr investigation was supposed to be about the who Whitewater affair. There was plenty of dirt on Hillary at the time but not enough on Bill to make a case against him. People need to remember that part implicitly. Ken Starr realizing there wasn't enough for him to go for a trial, Went after the affair instead. Why that continues past that point? Because Bill lied.

The point being, the death of Vince foster and the business dealings of the Clinton's being the real scandal. But it wasn't racy enough to keep the Press's attention. The affair actually took the heat off of the real reason for the investigation.
 
CuckFumbustion,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
You don't have to examine her smile or fake laugh to figure what she is up too. She will be determined to leave her own mark and her own agenda. So forget the whole "What you see is what you get." You will not be getting a third term of Bill Clinton. I figured that out the last time she ran. She has been persuing and circling the office since at least her college years. If you don't think she is ambitious, I would like you to show me somebody else who has used more cunning and conning to get closer to the office ever. I couldn't think of anybody either. Now think about all the people who she is connected to within her campaign and who will end up in her cabinet. Starting to sound a lot less like WYSIWYG. Now doesn't it?

So her big crime is she is ambitious? Of course none of those other candidates could ever be accused of that. Bogus issue! Plus you couched it in all sorts of pejorative language like 'cunning and conning'.

The people she is connected to will end up in her cabinet? (duh!) That sounds precisely like WYSIWYG.

If I completely hit the reset, forgot all of her history and baggage and just examined her behavior in the last 6 months, I would still think roughly about the same of her. Voters are trying to separate her from Monsanto by handing a petition around. :mental: So there are people who are just as irrational lovers of Hillary as well as haters.

Admittingly, She is the status quo candidate, But that is as far as I will go with the whole 'devil you know' concept. Bill Clinton wasn't too shabby a republican either. We had a budget surplus. Got people off public assistance and into the work force.

Again here this is all pre-digested fox news pap: "her history and baggage." What history and what baggage. Say what you mean. Don't just smear with innuendo. We can watch Fox news if we need more baseless innuendo and smear.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
These are relevant questions. One one hand you say WYSIWYG, then you ask why are we looking at her previous record? :hmm: If We make a solid point against her, we are not demonizing her (necessarily:lol: ). We are concerned voters who can't match her actions with what she is projecting. Its only normal to want to sort that out.

How exactly do you think Monsanto and other corporations became so powerful? Because of people like her handing power over. And what's to prevent them from doing it again? Absolutely Nothing. :nod: Won't get fooled again. Here is a link to her top doners.

ContributorTotalIndivsPACs
Citigroup Inc $824,402$816,402$8,000
Goldman Sachs $760,740$750,740$10,000
DLA Piper $700,530$673,530$27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $696,456$693,456$3,000
Morgan Stanley $636,564$631,564$5,000
EMILY's List $609,684$605,764$3,920
Time Warner $501,831$476,831$25,000
Skadden, Arps et al $469,290$464,790$4,500
University of California $417,327$417,327$0
Sullivan & Cromwell $369,150$369,150$0
Akin, Gump et al $364,478$360,978$3,500
Lehman Brothers $362,853$359,853$3,000
21st Century Fox $340,936$340,936$0
Cablevision Systems $336,613$307,225$29,388
Kirkland & Ellis $329,141$312,141$17,000
National Amusements Inc $328,312$325,312$3,000
Squire Patton Boggs $328,306$322,868$5,438
Greenberg Traurig LLP $327,890$319,790$8,100
Corning Inc $322,450$304,450$18,000
Credit Suisse Group

Has she changed her opinion since then? Has she quit receiving money from them? Are they funding a Super Pac for her now? I would scrutinize all the candidates equally if they are influenced by lobbyists. And I have. I want to know who those lobbyists are. She is not in favor of government transparency BTW.
I'm not sacrificing my critical thing for the comfort of the 'devil you know'. Or the lesser of two evils. We should scrutinize and challenge all the canidates and distinguish between .
 
Last edited:

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
See, you did it too! Her transgressions. Dark mutterings of dastardly deeds but what? This is what is technically called a 'smear job'.

Ask yourself what do you really know about Hillary Clinton's negatives aside from years and years of mendacious bashing by those same chuckleheads?
A couple of posts back I mentioned the huge contributions from Wall Street (while claiming to be for the little people) and voting for W's war. Add her ties to Monsanto and issues that I have a hard time getting past mount up.

Edit- @CuckFumbustion made the case better and faster than I.
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
These are relevant questions. One one hand you say WYSIWYG, then you ask why are we looking at her previous record? :hmm: If We make a solid point against her, we are not demonizing her (necessarily:lol: ). We are concerned voters who can't match her actions with what she is projecting. Its only normal to want to sort that out.
That is not what I said. I said if you have an issue with her previous record, bring it out. Don't just refer to 'baggage', 'transgressions', etc. What solid point? Monsanto? Chuckle.

The link somebody had above showing Hillary campaign contributions only went up to 2008. In that year she got something like $250K in individual contributions from Citibank employees. I wouldn't call that 'huge'. It's something. She also got similar amounts from the University of California. So does that mean she is biased in favor of higher education or California? BFD. A lot of these wealthy individuals in the financial world regularly contribute to both parties and often multiple candidates within parties. It's not like $250K from a bunch of individual contributors is going to buy much in the way of access to the the candidate. Paul Krugman, whom I regard as a useful authority on economics, says Hillary's Wall Street policies are smarter than Bernie's.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Doing business dealings with Monsanto isn't something I take lightly. They are responsible for quite a bit of harm and unethical business practices. It is worth scrutinizing at the very least. If others are willing to pass around a petition to help Hillary separate herself from Monsanto. Then that raises even more red flags.

Her 'baggage' can be interpreted in many forms in many ways. Where it is relevant is IF it will affect any future decisions. Which it will. Including who she puts in her cabinet and her VP choice. What she owes favors too. I have given a few examples and you can scoff at them too if you like, but it will matter to some other voter.

@Adobewan Thank you. I still like hearing you contribute your two cents tho.:nod:
 
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Here is better data for Clinton's 2016 cycle campaign contributions: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&

Soros Fund Management $7,037,800
Saban Capital Group $2,534,214
Paloma Partners $2,505,400
Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation $2,502,700
Women's Self Worth Foundation $2,500,001
Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $2,005,000
Pritzker Group $1,811,343
Carpenters & Joiners Union $1,505,400
Bohemian Foundation $1,252,700
Priorities USA/Priorities USA Action $1,151,000
Barbara Lee Family Foundation $1,058,619
American Federation of Teachers $1,057,728
Operating Engineers Union $1,010,000
Fair Share Action $1,010,000
DreamWorks SKG $1,008,100
DreamWorks Animation SKG $1,006,092
Slim Fast Corp $1,005,400
BLS Investments $1,002,700
Legendary Pictures $1,000,000
DE Shaw Research $802,700

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Looking at the list for this cycle, Ms. Clinton looks more like the union candidate than the Wall St. candidate. Notably, she got big pac donations from Haim Saban, but shows independence from him in her stance on the Iran nuclear treaty.
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career


Election cycles covered: 2016

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&

Both are from Opensecrets.org

Methodology
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/include/method_pop.php

Not sure why yours is 'better'. I find both the current and the career profile good to refer to. Fortunately they are from the same source with I presume use the same methodology. Keep in mind the changing of election money raising standards since 1989.
 
CuckFumbustion,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)



Not sure why yours is 'better'. I find both the current and the career profile good to refer to. Fortunately they are from the same source with I presume use the same methodology. Keep in mind the changing of election money raising standards since 1989.

My link is the same place as yours, but for 2016 cycle. You posted career long data.
 
Gunky,

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Read further down.
Not sure why yours is 'better'. I find both the current and the career profile good to refer to. Fortunately they are from the same source with I presume use the same methodology. Keep in mind the changing of election money raising standards since 1989.
I'm aware of this and mention it. Plus I added the methodology part so that we 'were on the same page'. For clarity's sake.
 
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion,

Gunky

Well-Known Member
My point is if you are interested in whom she might be beholden to, it is useful to know who supports her now, not 1989 which was 27 years ago.
 
Gunky,

CuckFumbustion

Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
I say she is probably beholden to both. And people should be skeptical and ask if there is any ties to the past. Especially that rouges list of her top doners on the list.
Goldman Sachs had strong ties with Obama and the bail out. Which could merely be coincidental to Clinton's history. :suspicious:

But, The money she raised earlier didn't become clean once she spent it. She may very well have forgotten who these people are and only want to help us and her current doners. :lol: I will allow room for an epiphany. But I need a little more proof of that change than just a current doners list. And then there's the twist of the current laws regarding campaign finances. Making your current figure a little less relevant.
 

gangababa

Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton "claimed there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” against her husband, and it turned out there was nothing but a bunch of tycoons financing private investigators, and some fake think tanks and books and news sites and stuff."

Almost everything that anyone claims to know as the "truth", has been told to that one by another, and has never been personally verified.

Virtually all knowledge is second hand. We believe things based upon the perceived veracity of the source of knowledge.
"Knowledge" can be negated, disproved, but knowledge not so negated is accepted as true. Most of us do not seek verification or negation as do scientists, so we happily live believing our culturally shared myths.

Anyone born after 1991 most likely knows nothing about Hillary Clinton except what was "told" to them.
Therefore investigate your sources carefully.
Today, all Clinton news is filtered through minds filled with the pollution of the past decades of increasingly poor education systems, decades of right-wing propaganda (Fox [not-so] News), decades of Republican creation of ignorant voters, decades of LIES.
Here is a report about a 66 item list, recently compiled by a columnist by the name of Brett Arends at Marketwatch.com

I welcome people to read the list of (unproven, likely unfounded) accusations and then set out to prove or negate the claims.
Which claims are true? Why do only the select few 'know' these things? Why can't the right-wing ever convince everyone that we are all the deluded ones.

"6. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up that she once bought a tract of undeveloped land in Arkansas and lost money.
7. She murdered Vince Foster to cover up her role in firing the White House travel department.
...
10. She once invested in commodities futures on the advice of a friend and made $100,000, proving she’s a crook.
11. She once invested in real estate on the advice of another friend and lost $100,000, also proving she’s a crook.
...
13. The personnel murdered at Benghazi make her the first secretary of state to lose overseas personnel to terrorism — apart from Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Schultz, Dean Rusk and some others.
14. Four State Department staff were murdered at Benghazi, compared with only 119 others murdered overseas under every secretary of state combined since World War II.

15. She illegally sent classified emails from her personal server, except that apparently they weren’t classified at the time.
16. She may have cynically wriggled around the email law by “technically” complying with it.

17. She once signed a lucrative book contract when she was a private citizen.
...
35. In order to suppress the billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, she cleverly packed them up and took them to the White House rather than shredding them.
36. When she handed over the documents to public officials, they couldn’t find any evidence she’d committed any crimes, so she must have doctored them.
37. Congress spent tens of millions of dollars and six years investigating her investment in the Whitewater real-estate project, and, while they didn’t actually find anything, they wouldn’t have spent all that money if there weren’t something there.""

And in no particular order of secret things Hillary has done; secrets that only conservatives know about.

12. Unnamed and unverifiable sources have told Peggy Noonan things about the Clintons that are simply too terrible to repeat.
45. She secretly supported Palestinian terrorists, Puerto Rican terrorists and Guatemalan terrorists.
46. She secretly supported a group that wants to give Maine back to the Indians.
47. She’s a secret follower of “radical prophet” Saul Alinsky.

62. She supported the Iraq war because she’s a secret foreign-policy conservative.
63. She’s a secret foreign-policy radical with a plan to impose worldwide “radical social experimentation” through the World Bank.
64. She is secretly plotting to let children sue their parents for making them take out the garbage.

32. She’s in the pay of the mafia.
33. She’s in the pay of the Chinese government.
34. She’s in the pay of the Wall Street banks.
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
One of the problems across the whole board regardless of candidate or party is transparency in financing. In spite of attempts to clear the picture up many folks feel the cash is still flowing in like a river just a little deeper underground and harder to see. Sadly it comes down to who do you trust and that is a hard thing to have in a politician (or anyone) I don't know as a person.
 

Farid

Well-Known Member
Anyone born after 1991 most likely knows nothing about Hillary Clinton except what was "told" to them.

I was in DC protesting the Iraq war in 2003 despite being 11 at the time. Writing off the young as being misinformed isn't fair at all. I remember being 11 and hearing adults defend the Iraq war and thinking, "what planet are these people on". Now those people should be held responsible for their mistakes, not rewarded. I didn't need to be told anything, I witnessed it first hand.
 

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
The Dems’ referendum on the Obama era takes an ironic twist

02/11/16 11:30 AM

About a month ago, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign seemed to make a deliberate decision: turn the Democratic presidential primary into a referendum on the Obama presidency. The strategy makes quite a bit of sense, given that President Obama remains a very popular figure in Democratic circles, and Clinton, far more than Bernie Sanders, is in a position to claim the president’s mantle.

To that end, during one of the recent debates, Clinton not only celebrated Obama’s many accomplishments, the Clinton campaign also issued a press release, criticizing Sanders over multiple instances in which he distanced himself from the Obama administration. The independent senator, Team Clinton said, “has a troubling history of questioning President Obama and his achievements.”

As the Democratic race has intensified, this referendum has become an even more obvious fulcrum. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent had a good piece on this late yesterday.
[T]he big picture here is that Sanders has gotten as far as he has by offering up a serious, if partial, indictment of the Obama years. He is arguing that Obama era reforms – Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, his climate agenda – ended up being woefully inadequate to the scale of our challenges, because he failed to sufficiently rally the grassroots against the power of the oligarchy and because the Democratic establishment still remains in thrall to oligarchic money.

Clinton full-throatedly defends Obama’s accomplishments as very much worth preserving, rejects the Sanders-promulgated notion that Obama could have gotten a whole lot more than he did, and vows to build on those achievements. The bigger, more diverse, more moderate electorates in the contests to come might be more receptive to Clinton’s arguments along these lines.​
I think that’s exactly right. For Democrats who believe the Obama era has been a great success, there’s no great appetite for a radical shift in direction. Clinton has an agenda of her own, but it intends to use Obama’s accomplishments as a foundation for progress.

For Democrats who believe the Obama era has fallen short, in part because the president’s agenda hasn’t been nearly as progressive or as bold as they’d like, Sanders is the more obvious choice – he doesn’t want to build on Obama’s record; the senator wants to replace that record with some vastly more ambitious.

There’s just one angle to this that I think has been largely overlooked: the irony.

Eight years ago, a similar dynamic unfolded in Democratic politics. Clinton mocked Obama as a dreamer whose rhetoric about “hope” and “change” wouldn’t amount to real, tangible results. In hindsight, whether you think that assessment was correct depends largely on, well, whether you’re a Clinton voter or a Sanders voter.

But for Sanders’ supporters, there’s an unstated twist. “I don’t like the way things turned out when we picked the inspirational idealist over the pragmatist,” they’re effectively arguing, “which is why this time I’m picking the inspirational idealist over the pragmatist.”
 

howie105

Well-Known Member
About a month ago, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign seemed to make a deliberate decision: turn the Democratic presidential primary into a referendum on the Obama presidency. The strategy makes quite a bit of sense, given that President Obama remains a very popular figure in Democratic circles, and Clinton, far more than Bernie Sanders, is in a position to claim the president’s mantle......Don't see it that way, I think Clinton is a mainline party candidate that can't or refuses to step too far off the party path to the party platform. Saunders presents a media friendly plot twist to what would otherwise boring democratic presentation. What caught many short was the electorates willingness to bail on the party presentation of both parties. As for Obama every day makes him less and less relevant to what going to happen in the upcoming election unless one believe it is.
 
howie105,
  • Like
Reactions: grokit

grokit

well-worn member
There’s just one angle to this that I think has been largely overlooked: the irony.
When mr. hope & change was running, he broke records for both individual and wall st. donations. Sanders has shattered those individual records, while shunning corporate donations so he has not been compromised by them. From my point of view, there's no irony at all because of where the money comes from.

I've always said, "If you want real change, follow the big money and vote the other way".

:2c:
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
When mr. hope & change was running, he broke records for both individual and wall st. donations. Sanders has shattered those individual records, while shunning corporate donations so he has not been compromised by them. From my point of view, there's no irony at all because of where the money comes from.
I've always said, "If you want real change, follow the big money and vote the other way".

:2c:
It is simply not the case that big change didn't happen because Obama took too much in campaign contributions from Wall Street. (If you believe that please let me know and I will put you on my ignore list because there is no basis for discussion if someone refuses to consider evidence and instead plumps for a storyline, fits the facts or no). There seems to be a kind of Bernie derangement syndrome which makes people believe all Republicans will suddenly vanish in a bizarro Rapture event the moment Bernie is nominated.
 
Last edited:

howie105

Well-Known Member
It is simply not the case that big change didn't happen because Obama took too much in campaign contributions from Wall Street. (If you believe that please let me know and I will put you on my ignore list because there is no basis for discussion if someone refuses to consider evidence and instead plumps for a storyline, fits the facts or no). There seems to be a kind of Bernie derangement syndrome which makes people believe all Republicans will suddenly vanish in a bizarro Rapture event the moment Bernie is nominated.

Seriously, the best that could happen for Sanders is that he would win in some sort of mega landslide and use that mandate to go for whatever goals he wants. However that would require an almost mystical collapse of the opposition and a superhuman level of negotiation skills on Sanders part. To be honest the most likely result of the election regardless of winner is business as usual.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I'm very angry that Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and plain and simple Bernie Sanders didn't. I was hoping that the Democrats would rally and vote against it but that didn't happen.

It was devastating to the people of Iraq and for America in more ways than one. Both countries will suffer from the fallout for many years to come.

Those that lied to the American people need to be held accountable. I'm so pissed that's never going to happen. Just sweep it under the rug.

Edit
If Hilary is the democrat's choice for president I will vote for her. I wouldn't waste my vote by not voting or voting for a republican.

@Gunky the Iraq War is not the only reason that I'm for Bernie, that is just one of them. I wouldn't base my choice just on that. @Gunky i respect your choice.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
[
I'm very angry that Hilary Clinton voted for the Iraq War and plain and simple Bernie Sanders didn't. I was hoping that the Democrats would rally and vote against it but that didn't happen.

It was devastating to the people of Iraq and for America in more ways than one. Both countries will suffer from the fallout for many years to come.

Those that lied to the American people need to be held accountable. I'm so pissed that's never going to happen. Just sweep it under the rug.
Don't you think that is a pretty narrow criterion to apply for a candidate with such a large record? A single vote in Congress which she has since said was a mistake? She wasn't even a deciding or even consequential vote. And she was hardly one of "those that lied to the American people". She was one of the people lied to by the Bush administration! The way people talk you would think she was in charge of the war. Obama was also against the war and yet he liked her enough to make her his secretary of state.
 

grokit

well-worn member
If anybody's doubting the evil power, and reach of monsanto...
You won't ever find this in the msm :disgust:

Doctors Name Monsanto’s Larvicide As Cause of Brazilian Microcephaly Outbreak
Zika_Virus_Outbreak_in_Brazil_1200x600.jpg
A report from the Argentine doctors’ organisation, Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, challenges the theory that the Zika virus epidemic in Brazil is the cause of the increase in the birth defect microcephaly among newborns.

The increase in this birth defect, in which the baby is born with an abnormally small head and often has brain damage, was quickly linked to the Zika virus by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. However, according to the Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, the Ministry failed to recognise that in the area where most sick people live, a chemical larvicide that produces malformations in mosquitoes was introduced into the drinking water supply in 2014. This poison, Pyriproxyfen, is used in a State-controlled programme aimed at eradicating disease-carrying mosquitoes.

The Physicians added that the Pyriproxyfen is manufactured by Sumitomo Chemical, a Japanese “strategic partner” of Monsanto. Pyriproxyfen is a growth inhibitor of mosquito larvae, which alters the development process from larva to pupa to adult, thus generating malformations in developing mosquitoes and killing or disabling them. It acts as an insect juvenile hormone or juvenoid, and has the effect of inhibiting the development of adult insect characteristics (for example, wings and mature external genitalia) and reproductive development. It is an endocrine disruptor and is teratogenic (causes birth defects), according to the Physicians.

The Physicians commented: “Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added Pyriproxyfen to drinking water are not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health places a direct blame on the Zika virus for this damage.”

They also noted that Zika has traditionally been held to be a relatively benign disease that has never before been associated with birth defects, even in areas where it infects 75% of the population.

Larvicide the most likely culprit in birth defects
Pyriproxyfen is a relatively new introduction to the Brazilian environment; the microcephaly increase is a relatively new phenomenon. So the larvicide seems a plausible causative factor in microcephaly – far more so than GM mosquitoes, which some have blamed for the Zika epidemic and thus for the birth defects. There is no sound evidence to support the notion promoted by some sources that GM mosquitoes can cause Zika, which in turn can cause microcephaly. In fact, out of 404 confirmed microcephaly cases in Brazil, only 17 (4.2%) tested positive for the Zika virus.

Brazilian health experts agree Pyriproxyfen is chief suspect
The Argentine Physicians’ report, which also addresses the Dengue fever epidemic in Brazil, concurs with the findings of a separate report on the Zika outbreak by the Brazilian doctors’ and public health researchers’ organisation, Abrasco.

Abrasco also names Pyriproxyfen as a likely cause of the microcephaly. It condemns the strategy of chemical control of Zika-carrying mosquitoes, which it says is contaminating the environment as well as people and is not decreasing the numbers of mosquitoes. Abrasco suggests that this strategy is in fact driven by the commercial interests of the chemical industry, which it says is deeply integrated into the Latin American ministries of health, as well as the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organisation.

Abrasco names the British GM insect company Oxitec as part of the corporate lobby that is distorting the facts about Zika to suit its own profit-making agenda. Oxitec sells GM mosquitoes engineered for sterility and markets them as a disease-combatting product – a strategy condemned by the Argentine Physicians as “a total failure, except for the company supplying mosquitoes”.

Are the Zika virus – and GM mosquitoes – being wrongly blamed?

To read the full article by Claire Robinson, visit gmwatch.org here.

http://www.march-against-monsanto.c...-as-cause-of-brazilian-microcephaly-outbreak/

also
http://www.robertscottbell.com/gove...-and-the-covert-op-continue-by-jon-rappoport/

:tinfoil:
 

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Bernie looked off his game and a little rattled in tonight's debate. He kept shifting about physically. PBS was showing the two candidates on split screen and Bernie kept waggling about in his portion of the screen, which made him look agitated and defensive. Clinton landed a few punches, I thought, mainly to do with the tax increases and disruption of some of the policies Bernie advocates, like single payer.
 
Gunky,

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Bernie kept csughing a bit. I thought he looked like he was coming down with something. He looked a little red faced at times too.

The Black democrats in Congress endorsed Hilary. Harry Belafonti endorsed Bernie today.

I thought they both did well in the debate. Interesting and I'm glad that Bernie mentioned that Henry Kissinger wasn't the best Sec of State. Hilary mentioned she was friends and admired him or something similar.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom