Hillary Clinton

[noddy]

There won't be any acceptable sources left. What then?

this is whats happened, we are still adjusting.

[Doc]

The Rolling stone is clearly the party in this article taking liberties with the truth. And that shows how extreme the Rolling Stone's bias is. Hence to be taken with a large amount of salt.

How do you know the Koch brothers aren't taking liberties with the truth? Have you met them?

Listen, you can play this game however you want. But if you're going to reject some posts because posters haven't personally met various people and reject other posts because the source is not good enough for you, then discussion ends. I can reject sources just as easily, without considering the material, because every source is biased. Rolling Stone? Leftist. Drudge? Right-winger. NYT? Too establishment. And so on. There won't be any acceptable sources left. What then?

How do I know you aren't a democratic party employee? Have I met you?

However the facts says that the stuff about the Koch brother is mostly shrill Democratic talking points. PERIOD. They are far surpassed in the political donations by Democrat big bucks contributors including Tom Steyer's $74 million dollars in this the 2014 campaign cycle.

There is without out any, beyond a shadow of a doubt lots and lots and lots of anti_Koch propaganda. Mostly to demonize Republicans and to deflect from the Democrats having so much more of this kind of thing than the Republicans have. From the "World's first carbon Billionaire" (Isn't that a conflict of interest to be lobbying for reducing CO2 while at the same time,at least making the claim, of) making a billion dollars from reducing CO2?

Steyer made his billions from coal and oil. Had a stake in the main competition to the Keystone XL pipeline that he is against. But you never hear anything about all of that in the MSM. Why are the democrats taking his money?

And I do notice that you have not refuted what I said about the Rolling Stone article not particularly telling the truth. That article drips, oozes political propaganda.

Tell you what try something like Wikipedia They at least shot for being unbiased. But don't post articles that spew propaganda as unbiased news. They just aren't. It serves little purpose to do so.

[YMix]

And I do notice that you have not refuted what I said about the Rolling Stone article not particularly telling the truth. That article drips, oozes political propaganda.

Tell you what try something like Wikipedia They at least shot for being unbiased. But don't post articles that spew propaganda as unbiased news. They just aren't. It serves little purpose to do so.

What is there to refute? You objected to two items from the beginning of the article and then rejected the rest as propaganda and Democratic talking points. Now that I think about it, since you're not a Democrat you are not allowed to talk about Democratic talking points. At least not until you've discussed your objections with the leaders of the Democratic Party.

[Typhoon]

Few things are more ridiculous than anonymous posters issuing commands to each other on the internet.

[Simple Minded]

There won't be any acceptable sources left. What then?

We all become simple minded?

this is whats happened, we are still adjusting.

wow, now we're all becoming even more simple minded-er.

[Simple Minded]

Few things are more ridiculous than anonymous posters issuing commands to each other on the internet.

IMSMO, King Canute-itus went viral a long time ago.

Far worse than ebola!

[noddy]

There won't be any acceptable sources left. What then?

We all become simple minded?

this is whats happened, we are still adjusting.

wow, now we're all becoming even more simple minded-er.

it used to be so simple, a couple of media providers telling people what "good N's" think and people only getting their local grumbles and differences and perhaps assuming that "the others" did think like that.

now. not so much.

all the different thought groups are much aware of eachother and they are aware of the loony extremes and splinters and mainstream media is slowly dying.
in my country all the traditional new sources are struggling to maintain revenue and adjust to the post internet rules.

[Simple Minded]

There won't be any acceptable sources left. What then?

We all become simple minded?

this is whats happened, we are still adjusting.

wow, now we're all becoming even more simple minded-er.

it used to be so simple, a couple of media providers telling people what "good N's" think and people only getting their local grumbles and differences and perhaps assuming that "the others" did think like that.

now. not so much.

all the different thought groups are much aware of eachother and they are aware of the loony extremes and splinters and mainstream media is slowly dying.
in my country all the traditional new sources are struggling to maintain revenue and adjust to the post internet rules.

I hear ya Bro, then ya throw into the mix that the other self-obsessed, self-focused, self-centered narcissists don't agree with me all the time on everything, or even most of the time on most things, and it gets pretty ugly!

It gets to the point that when it comes time to shut off yer brain, and join the herd parade..... who do ya trust?

Or should one just let their imagination run wild in order to make it easier to judge stuff one don't know about so one can get pissed off easier and faster?

But hey, enough about humanity in general.... does this sweat shirt I'm wearing make me look fat?

I think it has a slimming effect.... and it never needs to be ironed!

[Doc]

And I do notice that you have not refuted what I said about the Rolling Stone article not particularly telling the truth. That article drips, oozes political propaganda.

Tell you what try something like Wikipedia They at least shot for being unbiased. But don't post articles that spew propaganda as unbiased news. They just aren't. It serves little purpose to do so.

What is there to refute? You objected to two items from the beginning of the article and then rejected the rest as propaganda and Democratic talking points. Now that I think about it, since you're not a Democrat you are not allowed to talk about Democratic talking points. At least not until you've discussed your objections with the leaders of the Democratic Party.

What MSNBC has to say about Harry Reid and the Koch brothers:

spVHSjWeZDo

[Doc]

Few things are more ridiculous than anonymous posters issuing commands to each other on the internet.

http://screen.yahoo.com/amazing-alexand ... 00031.html

[Nonc Hilaire]

Few things are more ridiculous than anonymous posters issuing commands to each other on the internet.

[manolo]

Hillary Clinton is the only thing between the Democrats and immediate extinction. If HRC for some reason doesn't run then the democrats have no shot at the WH, at all. No national Democrat can win an election other than HRC.

Hillary is the favorite to win. She was however the favorite to win 8 years ago and didn't even get the nomination. The media, who did not see the last election coming at all, is the one telling us she is inevitable. They are not telling you that they failed as surrogates in every single race this year.

She is not inevitable. She has a 50/50 shot at best. In fact, the ONLY thing she has going for her is name recognition. She has no issues, she is a carbon copy of obama outside of left wing salons, no accomplishments to run on. She is not the natural heir of the obama electorate. She has no connection to youth voters or the black vote. She will get a strong women's vote but will be down in all other categories. I used to think that she was also going to benefit from the voters continually voting in divided gov't, but we see the electorate getting way more comfortable with one party Republican government.

The GOP has 4 known candidates (Bush, Christie, Cruz and Paul) and probably 4 more as yet unknown candidates. It's going to be interesting. I'm hoping this time that Bush and Christie can divide the moderates for a change so that a conservative can squeak in.

Nate Silver published a poll very unfavorable to HRC. She is not a lock by any stretch.

Mr P,

I'm thinking that the best way forwards would be for Obama to accept a third term.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Mr P,

I'm thinking that the best way forwards would be for Obama to accept a third term.

Alex.

Welcome back Alex!

Ya know, in the spirit of not being "selfish".... now that Obama has made America so much better, would it not be advantageous to make him president of the EU for a period of say, 8 years to help you guys out?

[manolo]

Ya know, in the spirit of not being "selfish".... now that Obama has made America so much better, would it not be advantageous to make him president of the EU for a period of say, 8 years to help you guys out?

SM,

I thought he already was.

Alex.

[Doc]

Few things are more ridiculous than anonymous posters issuing commands to each other on the internet.

Even crazier to expect people to believe things because they are on the internet

[noddy]

[Nonc Hilaire]

Please Noddy, no Clitler pics before breakfast.

[YMix]

Activists bristle at Hillary Clinton fundraising pleas

In early November, with her party on the eve of an electoral walloping, Democrat Mary Tetreau had had enough. The Londonderry, New Hampshire activist was sick of the constant emails begging for money for a candidate who wasn’t even running for office yet.

When another plea landed in her inbox the day before the election, she unsubscribed.

“I’m not going to be ready for Hillary until she announces she’s running for president,” said Tetreau, a three-decade veteran of New Hampshire primary politics, who called Ready for Hillary’s early-and-often email approach “annoying.”

Three months later, Hillary Clinton remains officially undeclared, but her campaign-in-waiting’s emails continue to flood inboxes of Democratic activists in early voting states. Though it amounts to little more than a nuisance in the grand scheme of the 2016 election, it does point to a downside of Clinton’s strategy of staying out of the public eye while her supporters campaign on her behalf. Namely, that it could create Clinton fatigue among activists and fuel concerns that she’s taking the Democratic nomination for granted.

“I’ll be ready for Hillary when Hillary’s ready for Hillary,” said Bill Verge, a Democratic activist who played a key role in John Kerry’s 2004 New Hampshire campaign. Like Tetreau, Verge, who said he has been “inundated with emails daily,” counts himself a likely Clinton supporter — but one turned off by the aggressive fundraising on behalf of a candidate who appears intent on postponing an official entry into the race possibly until July.

[...]

[Typhoon]

If I was an American, I would find a Republicrat J. Bush or Demopublican H. Clinton POTUS campaign troubling.

Too many candidates from the same families.

[Doc]

If I was an American, I would find a Republicrat J. Bush or Demopublican H. Clinton POTUS campaign troubling.

Too many candidates from the same families.

The reason for that is the two families have both built up sizable campaign machines with big money donors. Notice how anyone on the outside, that does not tow the line, gets trashed by the press? Now Obama has his own machine as well.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

.

If I was an American, I would find a Republicrat J. Bush or Demopublican H. Clinton POTUS campaign troubling.

Too many candidates from the same families.

.

The reason for that is the two families have both built up sizable campaign machines with big money donors. Notice how anyone on the outside, that does not tow the line, gets trashed by the press? Now Obama has his own machine as well.

.

Meaning Joe has nothing to say, he/she nobody

Explains why our beloved US of A on downhill slope since, say, Truman

A pity,

Joe must rise up and take thing back from crooks

You tellin me US of A with 350 m population can not produce a more intelligent, smart, competent, knowledgeable candidate than Jeb ? or Hillary ? ? .. what kind of genial family is this Bush that father and 2 sons become president?

Something really fishy here .. an insult to Joe

.

[Zack Morris]

The reason for that is the two families have both built up sizable campaign machines with big money donors.

Not that this is a problem, right? Campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights, we were told over the past few years.

[Doc]

The reason for that is the two families have both built up sizable campaign machines with big money donors.

Not that this is a problem, right? Campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment rights, we were told over the past few years.

IT started with Clinton renting out the Lincoln bedroom of the whitehouse for campaign donations But it has boiled down to a few competing groups It is no wonder things have become so polarized. All campaign all the time

[manolo]

Folks,

Good grief, how did someone manage to photoshop such a pretty face onto my mum's body!

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Folks,

Good grief, how did someone manage to photoshop such a pretty face onto my mum's body!

Alex.

Alex's Mum for POTUS!


She 's got my vote!

We've got the ad and the slogan. I think the difficult stuff is done.