Hillary Rodham Clinton

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6877
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

Hillary Rodham Clinton

#1

Post by Orlylicious » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:19 am

All our HRC topics are election related, I'm happy Hillary is lending her voice to #TheResistance. Great interview at the Women in the World conference.
Hillary Clinton Denounces Trump ‘Hurting So Many People,’ and Putin For Election Meddling
In her first major interview since the election, Hillary Clinton said she wanted an independent investigation into Russian hacking, and admitted it was “gratifying” to see TrumpCare fail.
Tim Teeman 04.07.17 12:45 AM ET

“As a person, I’m OK. As an American, I’m pretty worried,” Hillary Clinton said on Thursday in regards to the nascent Trump presidency. At the Women in the World conference in New York City, Clinton said she did not understand Trump pursuing an apparent “commitment to hurt so many people.”

Blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin directly for meddling in the presidential election, Clinton said she favored “an independent, non-partisan investigation” into what had occurred. “If we don’t take action together to hold whoever it was accountable, they will be back again.”
***
Asked about the 53 per cent of white women who had voted for Donald Trump, Clinton revealed she was writing a book “where I spend a lot of time wrestling with this. As you might guess, I have thought about it more than once. It is fair to say misogyny played a role. Why and what the underlining reasons were, I am trying to parse out for myself.

“There is a constant struggle—not just with women; women and men—in times of rapid change like the one we are living through between something that is different, and may hold out possible, positive consequences and something that is familiar, and the security of what we have right now.”

The election was “a very real struggle between what is viewed as change that is welcomed and exciting to so many Americans and change that is worrisome and threatening to so many others. You lay the first woman president over that and some people, women included, had real problems.”
More quotes and story at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... dling.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aI0iLIwfa2w



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3445
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#2

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:41 pm

Image



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 8393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#3

Post by Mikedunford » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:50 pm

FFS.


I believe that each era finds a improvement in law each year brings something new for the benefit of mankind.

--Clarence Earl Gideon

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 709
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#4

Post by neeneko » Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:07 pm

Hrm.

Wasn't one of the things that came out of the DNC emails that they pretty much made up and spread the 'bernie bros' meme as a way to discourage young women from siding with Sanders? So they were 'so called' in that, well, that is what she called them.



User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6169
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#5

Post by RoadScholar » Tue Sep 05, 2017 5:44 pm

On the other hand, the "party unity my ass" folks I ran into who were so smitten by Bernie they refused to vote for Hillary were overwhelmingly male. So there's that.


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

Judge Mental
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:29 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#6

Post by Judge Mental » Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:27 pm

Presumably this means precious little in real terms? They will (presumably) simply 'investigate ' and then re-confirm that the complaint is frivolous. Correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... stigation/



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#7

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:10 pm

Judge Mental wrote:Presumably this means precious little in real terms? They will (presumably) simply 'investigate ' and then re-confirm that the complaint is frivolous. Correct?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... stigation/
After reading the article, I don't think this complaint is frivolous -- certainly not on its face. Keep in mind that this was probably the decision that ultimately cost her the election and definitely tainted her with the appearance of impropriety at the least. I don't know if the lawyers involved acted ethically or not, but I certainly think that their actions should be investigated and, if found to be unethical, have the appropriate consequences.

Or would it have been A-OK for Donnie Jr's lawyers to help him delete his emails? I hope an investigator with Mueller's integrity gets this and the result isn't partisan in any way.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Judge Mental
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:29 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#8

Post by Judge Mental » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:39 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
.....Or would it have been A-OK for Donnie Jr's lawyers to help him delete his emails?.....
As a complete layman would guess that the answer to that question (re either Clinton or Donny Jr) at least partly depends upon what the nature of the 'help' from the lawyers actually was. Were for example Clinton's lawyers to have simply helped her determine which of her e mails could not possibly ever be (to a lawyer's eye) considered to be anything other than personal then that probably wouldn't be unethical. However had they instead helped her determine which e mails had potential to harm her in some way and advised her to delete them irrespective of whether they were genuinely personal or not then that might presumably be unethical.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#9

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:09 pm

Regarding that page, its bieng bounced around the Shiternets by the Bernie bros as proof that hillery was the greatest evil known to man. In fact she continuously takes responsibility for her mistakes in the actual book. But GOD FORBID she actually takes a few shots at the most holy messiah Bernie... who she beat in a landslide in the Primaries, and yet who behaved like an entitled prick denied his cream, sniping at the Democratic Party ever since. For shame that she unlimber her inner bitch for once.

For examples of her not blaming herself for anything.
“I was running a traditional presidential campaign with carefully thought-out policies and painstakingly built coalitions,” she writes, “while Drumpf was running a reality TV show that expertly and relentlessly stoked Americans’ anger and resentment.”
"I go back over my own shortcomings and the mistakes we made. I take responsibility for all of them. You can blame the data, blame the message, blame anything you want—but I was the candidate."
So ya.

Anyway, heres some more of her dead on accurate talking about Bernie and how she was caught between a rock and a hard place with him

https://twitter.com/HillaryWarnedUs/sta ... 182134786/
Hillary Warned Us‏ @HillaryWarnedUs

It looks like @HillaryClinton quoted @HelenStickler's marvelous - and dead-on accurate - FB meme in WHAT HAPPENED.

Genuflect, tweeps.
Image Image


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
YaYa
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:44 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#10

Post by YaYa » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:36 pm

Let us NOT forget that the Bernie Sanders FB pages were shut down at one point due to child porn posts made by HRC supporters at large.



User avatar
vic
Posts: 3159
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#11

Post by vic » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:38 pm

I've tried to avoid the Monday-morning re Clinton. But I have to say

:like: Suranis



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41882
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#12

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:43 pm

Have we seen Bernie's tax returns yet?



User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#13

Post by AndyinPA » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:44 pm

Can't seem to copy text, but on

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029584849

Hillary is quoted as saying that the media can't face their role in electing 45. Now that I can really get behind! It was infuriating watching it for a year and a half.

I also read that she was met by a cheering crowd at Barnes and Noble in NYC today.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#14

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:47 pm

Ya, her book is selling like hot cakes apparently.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#15

Post by June bug » Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:56 pm

YaYa wrote:Let us NOT forget that the Bernie Sanders FB pages were shut down at one point due to child porn posts made by HRC supporters at large.
Not according to the Daily Beast:
Supporters of Bernie Sanders took to Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter late Monday night after five of their Facebook community pages—with tens of thousands of members—went dark the night before five Democratic party primaries.

Theories on Sanders’s primary subreddit and Facebook pages quickly popped up, accusing Hillary Clinton supporters of a coordinated effort with a SuperPAC to report the Sanders pages for threats of violence and child pornography until the pages went down.

Some news organizations appeared to back some of the theories. Paste Magazine headlined one story, “Clinton’s Internet Supporters, Allegedly Using Pornography, Shut Down Bernie Sanders’ Largest Facebook Groups in Coordinated Attack.” Salon joined in, too, pointing to a “mystery over booted Bernie Sanders Facebook groups.”
:snippity:

But Facebook—and now even the affected pro-Sanders groups themselves—say that the real problem was merely a database error that affected more pages than just Sanders-leaning community pages.

“A number of groups were inaccessible for a brief period after one of our automated policies was applied incorrectly,” a Facebook spokesperson wrote. “We corrected the problem within hours and are working to improve our tools.”


All seven of the Sanders pages—five of which had more than 10,000 members—were restored a few hours after they went down.
More at the link.



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3445
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#16

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:13 pm

The Brutal Truth Is That Sanders Did Damage Clinton
Hillary Clinton has finally taken the gloves off and spoke her mind about her Democratic presidential rival, Bernie Sanders. She flatly charged that Sanders hurt her White House bid. She got very specific and claimed that the “lasting damage” he did to her campaign did much to put Trump in the Oval Office. She took the big broad side at Sanders in her new book, What Went Wrong. Now that she has made that charge against Sanders, the question is, “Is she right?

:snippity:
So, how much should Sanders, even though he firmly backed Clinton, be blamed for his most rabid backers breaking ranks and crossing the political Rubicon to vote for Trump? Clinton says he poisoned the political well with his drumbeat attacks on her as a war mongering, handmaiden for corporate interests, hard line beltway Democrat. This did give Trump some ammunition to con voters into thinking that he’d somehow be different from her and any other establishment politician, and really do something for the beleaguered, forgotten, hard-pressed workers who watched as their jobs and livelihood and future fled to distant shores.
:snippity:
Is that Bernie’s fault as Clinton complains? No, if one believes that Sanders had no sway over his backers. Yes, if one accepts the reality that his attacks on Clinton were so fervent that they hit home hard with his most die-hard supporters. The problem for Clinton was that there were just enough of them to tip the presidential scales to Trump, and that’s the brutal truth about Sanders.



User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#17

Post by AndyinPA » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:38 pm

I liked both Clinton and Sanders and never got into a fight over them. I was thrilled to vote for Sanders in the primary, but I had absolutely no problem voting for Hillary in the general. I have never been able to understand how anyone who was unhappy/pissed that Hillary won the primaries could have possibly voted for 45. That man spent the previous year and a half (and much more) showing us exactly who he was. What could they possibly have expected other than what we have (although what we have is worse than I ever imagined it would be)?



Mr Pfister
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:23 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#18

Post by Mr Pfister » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:52 pm

Suranis wrote:...who she beat in a landslide in the Primaries...
Actually this is a highly inaccurate statement, but given your vile statements towards Mr Sanders I'm guessing it does not matter to you.

Every count I have seen that is given to support this assertion does not include "pledged voters"
in the Caucus states.

I know for a fact it does not include those in WA State, where the DNC altered long standing rules 10 days prior to the Tier 2 Caucuses in a manner that benefited HRC by a factor of 3-1.

The Democratic Party continues to choose to use Caucuses in WA State, despite the fact that a "Primary Election" is also held. This is where extremists such as yourself might get confused by results.

While the WA State Caucuses (which are legally binding) produced a 72% Sanders / 28% Clinton result (look it up, he took EVERY COUNTY in that state) the "Primary" election (which is NOT legally binding) produced a 52.38% Clinton / 47.62% Sanders split.

Why the difference?

A couple decades ago both parties were using Caucuses in the State of Washington to select their respective Presidential candidates to advance to the General Election. Some folks didn't like this so they managed to get legislation passed to implement a "Presidential Primary" Election which at that time was purely "advisory".

In the time since, the Republican Party chose to drop Caucuses altogether in WA, whereas the Democratic Party has chosen to remain with the Caucus selection process. As such, a Primary Election was held in May, and per State Law, candidates from both parties were listed on the ballots. However, everyone who knows anything about actually voting as a Dem in WA State knows the "Primary Election" is purely advisory. As such, why bother voting?

Well if you are an extremist HRC supporter and saw how Sanders SLAUGHTERED her in the Caucuses, (again - 72% tom28%) of course you will do anything to support her. As such, the HRC supporters appear to "cherry pick" the election data out of WA State and rely on numbers that don't even count!!!

To make matters worse, here's what the DNC did in WA to try to help HRC.

10 days before Tier 2 Caucuses were held, the Democratic Party changed the rule with respect to assigning "alternate delegates" per precinct. It appears the old rule was standing since the Caucus system was first put into place in that state.

Regardless, prior to the rule change, only alternates from a specific precinct could be seated in place in such precinct when pledged delegates "no showed" at Tier 2. If you recall, several states "flipped" to Sanders at their respective Tier 2 when delegates and alternates pledged to HRC failed to show for the 2nd round.

To combat this, The Democratic Party changed this rule to allow alternates from DIFFERENT PRECINCTS to be seated in place of no shows.

While "both candidates COULD have benefited" from this rule change, the 3-1 margin by which Sanders swept the state meant that Sanders would have to have 3 delegates replaced for every 1 HRC did in order to be "equal".

The DNC and HRC lost this election fair and square.

The Republican Parrty ran a very "clean" primary process through and through. For proof of this just LOOK at who rose to the top of that crazy train.

The Democrats on the other hand ran a biased and dirty primary, and likely handed the office to the freak who holds it now.

I get it that the extreme HRC supporters are still "mad" at anyone and anything they feel
"Cost her" the election.

But those fools need to look in the mirror first and foremost, and then look to the party and dirty processes that were used to shove HRC down our throats next.

After all, it was "her turn", right?



User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#19

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:11 pm

Judge Mental wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
.....Or would it have been A-OK for Donnie Jr's lawyers to help him delete his emails?.....
As a complete layman would guess that the answer to that question (re either Clinton or Donny Jr) at least partly depends upon what the nature of the 'help' from the lawyers actually was. Were for example Clinton's lawyers to have simply helped her determine which of her e mails could not possibly ever be (to a lawyer's eye) considered to be anything other than personal then that probably wouldn't be unethical. However had they instead helped her determine which e mails had potential to harm her in some way and advised her to delete them irrespective of whether they were genuinely personal or not then that might presumably be unethical.
As you pointed out, the important point is that we use the same standard in both cases, which begs the question of how we know if the emails were innocent or damning. There is no way to determine this once the emails are deleted. This, to me, is a textbook case of appearance of impropriety. And yet the lawyers of a major politician either didn't think of this or didn't think that it was a problem. I've got a problem with that.

On an unrelated note, I notice that, once again, any attempt to identify or discuss mistakes that Hillary made seems to bring out a lot of people complaining about Bernie and his supporters. Sorry, but mistakes made by others don't excuse the choices she made, not to mention that it took two to tango with the infighting and the Clinton campaign/DNC failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety with respect to the primary without any help at all from the Bernie bots.

I don't believe that Hillary Clinton should be able to criticize others without addressing honest criticism herself. She decided to judge Bernie, so why should she be exempt from judgement? I think Hillary is the consummate twentieth century politician. Unfortunately, the twentieth century ended a while ago.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Sam the Centipede
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:25 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#20

Post by Sam the Centipede » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:20 pm

It's intriguing that the Republicans are criticized for a primary process that produced a candidate that the leaders of the party didn't want while the Democrats are criticized for a primary process geared towards producing a candidate that the leaders of the party wanted.

Anyway, the real villains in the piece are those people who voted for Donald Trump and those who failed to vote against him.



User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#21

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:24 pm

According to people who have read the book Mrs Clinton spends a lot of time admitting to her own mistakes. She was not deflecting anything or blaming anyone else for her own mistakes. Unfortunately, everyone else just wants to blame her alone without admitting their own mistakes. She also talks about the mistakes of other people. Whats she supposed to do, chop her own limbs off to satisfy people?

My comment was to shoot down the whole meme that Hillary was arrogantly blaming Sanders and attacking everyone else in her book. That is just not true. If you want to fall into the smear campaign based on the one page the berniebros are throwing about then thats your prerogative.

In reality, there was a whole lot of factors out there in this election that were beyond Hillarys control, and any mania to just look at Clinton as the sole and most important reason is frankly stupid. She isn't running again.

Finally,here is some data to show what I mean...

Image

Image
Edit: I just read down that DU thread linked above, and this shows some of the other issues she mentions.
Neither MSNBC or CNN are touching this issue...

They've all had a lot of talking heads go into other issues mentioned in the book - like Comey, Russia, not visiting some states etc.

But at least while I was listening, no hint of media's role was allowed to surface.
This shows that she DOES talk about one of the valid issues that people have brought up, namely not visiting states.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#22

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:39 pm

While I would have been a little more diplomatic (I hope), Mr. Pfister hit the nail right on the head. The Democratic Party chose to run a dirty primary campaign with the intent of installing Ms. Clinton as the nominee. Even though the rules (i.e. super-delegates) already gave her an undemocratic* advantage from day 1. This understandably upset Sanders supporters (and disappointed people like me). Then they chose to do nothing to address the obviously legitimate concerns regarding how the primary was run, nor have they suggested any changes for the future that would be responsive to those concerns since.

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove would be proud.

* small-d democratic.

Suranis,

I think you are dead wrong. The Democratic party will go on making the same mistakes Hillary did if they are not forced to acknowledge them and change. As you say, Hillary pointed out her own mistakes (as well as those of others) -- that invites others to point out the mistakes she missed in my book. The truth is that Hillary and Bernie could have jointly put the good of the country (or even the party) ahead of their own personal gain after Trump clinched the nomination and we would have probably avoided all of this. Neither of these people are the type of leaders I believe we need for the future.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 14542
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#23

Post by Suranis » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:43 pm

In nice news, HRC sent Pizza to the people who were camped outside of barnes and noble to meet her the night before.

https://wonkette.com/622812/tyrant-hill ... an-asshole

Who knew that people would camp outside a book shop to meet such an unlikable candidate. :eek2:


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Posts: 6973
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#24

Post by Slartibartfast » Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:55 pm

Sam the Centipede wrote:It's intriguing that the Republicans are criticized for a primary process that produced a candidate that the leaders of the party didn't want while the Democrats are criticized for a primary process geared towards producing a candidate that the leaders of the party wanted.

We would have been much better off if the two processes were reversed, but the establishment Democrats could have at least acknowledged the problem and addressed it for the future (since they couldn't exactly have a do-over).

Anyway, the real villains in the piece are those people who voted for Donald Trump and those who failed to vote against him.

Bullshit! This is an egregiously undemocratic and entitled sentiment and exactly the same logic that was used to call everalm a racist because he voted for Brexit. Even if it were true (or especially if it were true), it is the most counterproductive attitude that I can think of.


"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

Mr Pfister
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2017 12:23 pm

Re: Hillary Rodham Clinton

#25

Post by Mr Pfister » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:01 pm

What I noticed most during the primaries was the reaction of NON-Democrats towards Clinton & Sanders. My social circle is quite large and I count among good friends people from all walks of life including a broad spectrum of political beliefs.

Many (but certainly not all) of my right-leaning friends were understandably (and rightfully) embarrassed as Trump began rising to the top.

I had several life-long Republican voting friends tell me straight up "I will vote for Sanders IF he wins the nomination". Not one of them was willing to vote for Clinton.

This is where I believe the DNC screwed the pooch big time. There were - and still are - large swaths of traditionally Republican voting people who were willing to vote outside of their party, just "not her"

To be fair, I don't blame HRC herself for all of the hate she gets.

The reason I always felt she was a poor candidate for President was that - in my opinion - she was simply unelectable due to the Hate Clinton industry that was spawned by Faux News and the rest of the right-wing hate machine.

That in itself is not her fault and in many ways is simply unfair. 25+ years of stirring up the Hate Hillary worked against her and much of it was all lies.

But it worked.

In fact it worked so well that much of that machine was downright pissed when Obama received the nomination in 08. Remember Rush's antics?

This is why I felt it was foolish to run her in an election. That machine was hell bent on receiving their just return on investment in that 2 1-2 decade long campaign, and sure enough they got it.

The arrogance of the extreme HRC supporters (not all of her supporters, just the rabid ones) certainly did not help. It gave an appearance of a sense of self-entitlement to her "inevitable election" and that too I believe was another of the 1000 cuts.

It's too bad the Democratic Party is still too heavily influenced by the $$$$ that have taken over our electoral process. That's where the real holdup is.

They own the R side 110%, and own a sizeable (and very powerful) portion of the D side, rendering any possibility of the Democratic Party actually representing "We The People" null and void.



Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”