"Bill Clinton: George H.W. Bush will help President Hillary" Proof that the elites are buddies in private?
How "private" can it be if he's allowed quotes of the exchange? If this was all so nefarious, why wasn't that liberal, meddling, busybody reporter SILENCED for daring to print something unflattering to America's Number One Criminal Mastermind, Bill Clinton? As for your last question, anyone who is taken in by the rantings of a "blog". It WOULD be nice to have a viable third party, but the only reason to start one now, without any meaningful campaign finanace reform, is to just let more pigs feed at the corporate trough. Just a whole NOTHER set of rich, disconnected white men who have only one interest: Being part of what makes Washington, well, WASHINGTON: Fat pensions for doing nothing, a good ole boy system unparalleled in the rest of the world, a singleminded goal of eradicating ANY non-service job from the US. On a different level, is it really so unbelievable, a past President might actually ASSIST a soon-to-be (well, we'll see anyway) President? Even one of another Party? In the interests of the citizens of the US (I know, I would find this mighty hard to believe too, but who knows?)? So what youre cynicism is telling you is that Clinton and Bush Sr are in cahoots, but Bush Sr and Bush Jr AREN'T? Part of my constant and ever widening dismay with this President, is he has (or had) unprecedented access to the experience of more living Presidents, than any sitting President before him, not to mention one of those Presidents is his own FATHER. How many times have you heard stories about Bush Jr calling his dad to the White House over some security emergency or other? NONE? No one else has either. Let us not forget Bush Sr was Director of the CIA for MANY years, Vice President for 8, and Chief Executive for 4 (4 odd years, but at least we didn't the Supreme Court to determine what President Americans elected THAT election). Bush Sr (I know thats not his name I type it that way just for shorthand) also receives daily intel briefs from ALL US and Allied intel services, a prerogative of ALL past Presidents, but one so far only exercised by Bush Sr. As far as foreign intelligence gathering, there are few living individuals as experienced or as capable as our former President Bush. (Domestic policies sucked wind, but militarily and forieng relations wise, Bush Sr was da Bomb [how old am I?? lol])
Hillary wiped her server--wasn't obstruction of justice the Clinton theme from the 90's?
In a letter provided to the committee, Kendall said Clinton would not be turning over the server to a third-party for review and that the emails no longer exist on the private server located in her New York home. “There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server that hosted the hdr22@clintonemail.com account,” Kendall wrote. “To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be academic, I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails…..for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/go...
Why is it that Clinton voters don't seem to be able to fathom the idea that third party voters don't care that they're one less vote for Clinton?
Of course, I understand that someone can dislike both Clinton and Trump, but I’m not sure how someone can study the issues and candidates of any election and determine that two candidates are “equally bad.” In fact, I’m not sure subjective decisions can be “equally” anything.While I will vote for Clinton, I equally don’t understand Republicans who will stay home or vote for a third party. One of these two people is going to be President, and I think people who say they are “equally bad” are at best, lazy, and at worst, disingenuous.Clinton and Trump are vastly different candidates. They have presented radically different agendas for the country. Their tone and rhetoric are starkly different. The types of experience that they bring to table are also in contrast. We are not talking about two indistinguishable candidates here. What I cannot fathom is that a person can study these two candidates and not care about the outcome.As a thought experiment, imagine Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz lived in the same state and they held a jungle primary (where the top two vote getters in an open, non-partisan primary advance to the general) like they do in California.Man, I cannot stand Marco Rubio - a self-interested poseur who rolls over for the religious and conservative right. But Cruz is a demon with black tar flowing through his veins. It would be a terribly depressing to cast my vote for Rubio, but I’d do it. I wouldn’t show up and write in “Harambe” because I really despise both candidates. I’d retain my ability to judge which outcome I prefer.To not do so, to me, would be a form of what psychologists call “catastrophizing.” Having to vote for either Rubio or Cruz would be a terrible injustice. But if every injustice is escalated to 100%, we lose our ability to prioritize and make rational decisions.
Did Hilary Clinton lose to Obama because of sexism?
She lost because of two things: #1. She tried to get people to vote for her because she (in not so many words) said she "deserved" the job. NOBODY deserves to be elected to the least position in politics; that is a PRIVILEGE which is allowed by the voters, not taken-for-granted. She presented herself as being little more than a shrill harridan who would nag people into voting for her. #2. She could not disguise the blatant lust for power she has. Even George Dubbya had enough brains to develop the "Village Idiot" act to disguise his ethic-free power-hungry self-serving egotistical opportunistic agenda. That George Dubbya is a smarter political player than Hillary Clinton is something of a concern.