Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Hillary Victory Fund’s quarterly report (Jan thru Mar 2016), of the $33.6 million it raised, just $5.5 million was directed to various Democratic committees across the country, including the DNC.

Let's do the math:

5.5 / 33.6 = 16.4%

According to the World Health Organization one of every two people on earth is a female. Think about that the next time you see a video of the Beatles. Which two are chicks?

(Translation: No. You're wrong. You are going by a statistical average, which can be changed any time she decides to give more, or less, to the down line.)
 
According to the World Health Organization one of every two people on earth is a female. Think about that the next time you see a video of the Beatles. Which two are chicks?

(Translation: No. You're wrong. You are going by a statistical average, which can be changed any time she decides to give more, or less, to the down line.)
Have I told you lately how much I like you? :)
 
So more down line not going to happen then?

Just happened. Do some checking. I know its hard for conservatives to figure out anything not written on a blog, but this can be verified.

As S&A said, do the math. One cannot give more than $2700 to an individual candidate or an individual candidate's fund. Clooney has not disputed the intake of approx 15 million, so how does one get around those limitations and contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Here's how. The Hillary Victory Fund is not solely Hillary's. It is jointly covering her campaign efforts, raising money for the DNC, and raising money for 32 individual state Democratic Parties. Multiplying those individual limitations, rich folk are allowed to give 2700.00 x 33 (Hillary and the states) and can give $5000 to the DNC.... or about 95,000 by donating to HFA.1
BUT, that money is going directly to those other groups, not to the Hillary campaign.

Bernie's got a similar fund, opened by the DNC who put the first $1000 in there. Apparently there's still a thousand bucks in there. Bernie's money is for Bernie, not the Democratic ticket.

1. My figures are conservative. NPR says that Hillary can milk big bucks donors out of 700,000, albeit half of that is already a missed opportunity because the max. per calendar year would seem to be 350,000. Again, though, as NPR tells us, it's based on getting contributions to the DNC and various state organizations. http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/46076...ton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000
I based my figures on candidate limits. They are basing theirs on being able to contribute more to a state organization than to an individual candidate.
 
Bernie Sanders’ Team Just Accused Hillary Clinton of Violating Campaign Finance Rules (April 18, 2016)

On the eve of the New York primary, the Bernie Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee of skirting campaign finance rules by using funds from a joint fundraising committee to benefit Clinton's presidential run.

In a letter to embattled DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Sanders campaign attorney Brad Deutsch questioned whether the Clinton campaign had "violated legal limits on donations" through activities associated with the Hillary Victory Fund. The HVF is a joint fundraising committee, which raises and spends money on behalf of Hillary for America (Clinton's official campaign committee), the DNC, and 33 state Democratic parties.

The Sanders campaign said that the way the committee was set up allowed it to receive individual donations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, arguing that some donations to the committee exceeded up to 130 times the $2,700 individual donors are allowed to contribute to campaigns under federal election rules. A lot of that money is flowing to Clinton's campaign to pay for campaigning activities and salaries, Deutsch said, in "serious apparent violations" of the law.

https://news.vice.com/article/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-victory-fund-dnc-campaign-finance-rules
 
Bernie Sanders’ Team Just Accused Hillary Clinton of Violating Campaign Finance Rules (April 18, 2016)

On the eve of the New York primary, the Bernie Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee of skirting campaign finance rules by using funds from a joint fundraising committee to benefit Clinton's presidential run.

In a letter to embattled DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Sanders campaign attorney Brad Deutsch questioned whether the Clinton campaign had "violated legal limits on donations" through activities associated with the Hillary Victory Fund. The HVF is a joint fundraising committee, which raises and spends money on behalf of Hillary for America (Clinton's official campaign committee), the DNC, and 33 state Democratic parties.

The Sanders campaign said that the way the committee was set up allowed it to receive individual donations worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, arguing that some donations to the committee exceeded up to 130 times the $2,700 individual donors are allowed to contribute to campaigns under federal election rules. A lot of that money is flowing to Clinton's campaign to pay for campaigning activities and salaries, Deutsch said, in "serious apparent violations" of the law.

https://news.vice.com/article/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-victory-fund-dnc-campaign-finance-rules

Gee, it's like there's an echo in here. Bernie's campaign just discovered this? Or is this like the Nurse's PAC that they didn't remember getting millions from until it was brought up.

This has about a hope in hell of getting through the DNC. They set up the rules and are aware of them. If Bernie had paid any attention to the Bernie Victory Fund instead of sucking up all the money for Bernie, he would've known this.

Opportunism on the eve of the NY primary.
 


Ouch: Social critic calls Clinton ‘utterly corrupt,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘soulless’ (April 18, 2016)

Feminist academic and social critic Camille Paglia certainly isn’t buying Democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton’s attempts to convince American women she’s the best choice for 2016.

“The woman has never succeeded in any job, she’s created chaos after chaos, including now all of North Africa spilling its refugees into Europe, and it’s due to Hillary for taking out Gaddafi and not thinking about what would happen afterward,” she said.

“I think she’s absolutely soulless,” Paglia added. “I think she’s incompetent.”

https://personalliberty.com/ouch-influential-dem-calls-clinton-utterly-corrupt-incompetent-soulless/

Wow! I would never have imagined the day would ever come when I start agreeing with feminists. Maybe there is more to this feminist malarky than meets the eye. Strange days, indeed.
 
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/69635571606139bc8c.jpg[/qimg]

Ouch: Social critic calls Clinton ‘utterly corrupt,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘soulless’ (April 18, 2016)

Feminist academic and social critic Camille Paglia certainly isn’t buying Democratic presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton’s attempts to convince American women she’s the best choice for 2016.

“The woman has never succeeded in any job, she’s created chaos after chaos, including now all of North Africa spilling its refugees into Europe, and it’s due to Hillary for taking out Gaddafi and not thinking about what would happen afterward,” she said.

“I think she’s absolutely soulless,” Paglia added. “I think she’s incompetent.”

https://personalliberty.com/ouch-influential-dem-calls-clinton-utterly-corrupt-incompetent-soulless/

Wow! I would never have imagined the day would ever come when I start agreeing with feminists. Maybe there is more to this feminist malarky than meets the eye. Strange days, indeed.

This particular feminist appears completely illiterate when it comes to world events. I sure hope you aren't agreeing with her when it comes to that.
 
I am uncertain about trusting Hillary Rodham Clinton.



Hillary's supervisor, Impeachment Inquiry Special Counsel Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel — as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”

Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, which was a violation of House rules. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn’t want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense.

But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:

“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.

Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings.

‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the president representation,’ he said.

After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.”

In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation:

“Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”

When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account.

But in a 2008 column Zeifman wrote, “My own reaction was of regret, when I terminated her employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations.”

In 2008, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign replied to Zeifman’s claims directly by saying, “In a column circulating on the Internet Jerry Zeifman alleges that Hillary was fired from her job on the House Judiciary Committee in the 1970s. This is false. Hillary was not fired.” That website has since been taken offline.


Then there is the doubt surrounding the Clinton/Arkansas body count.



.
 
This particular feminist appears completely illiterate when it comes to world events. I sure hope you aren't agreeing with her when it comes to that.


It's a safe bet she wasn't at the George Clooney fundraiser. Jane Fonda was there, but Barbra Streisand was a no show.
 
Last edited:
Democrats March Toward Cliff

Robert Parry said:
[...] It is hard to imagine someone who is viewed unfavorably by a clear majority of voters (56 percent) and with a net-negative of 24 points winning the White House, except that most voters also don’t like the top Republican choices either. Donald Trump sports a 41-point net-negative and Sen. Ted Cruz is at minus-23 points. (By contrast, of the two trailing candidates, Sen. Bernie Sanders gets a net-positive 9 points and Gov. John Kasich a net-positive 12 points.)

But a major difference between Trump and Clinton in the latest poll is that Trump’s numbers haven’t moved much while Clinton’s net-negative has almost doubled in the last month. In other words, the more Americans get to see of Clinton the more they don’t want her. [...]


I almost want to see Killary soundingly losing to that General Mattis or whoever the Republicans will choose to get rid of Teh Donald and Cruz, just to watch the reaction (vaporization?) of the increasingly shrill, disingenuous and plain stupid shillaries. Almost.
 
Democrats March Toward Cliff




I almost want to see Killary soundingly losing to that General Mattis or whoever the Republicans will choose to get rid of Teh Donald and Cruz, just to watch the reaction (vaporization?) of the increasingly shrill, disingenuous and plain stupid shillaries. Almost.

From the linked article:

If neither Clinton nor Sanders could clinch the nomination on the first ballot........

Is there any (reasonable, informed) suggestion that this could be the case ?

In a two horse race, would this require delegates to abstain ?
 
Sanders is wishfully believing he can end up with more pledged delegates than Clinton resulting in an opening to persuade superdelegates to switch sides.

It's not going to happen but that is where the talk of a brokered Democratic Convention comes from.
 
Posted by Bubba View Post
I am uncertain about trusting Hillary Rodham Clinton.


Then there is the doubt surrounding the Clinton/Arkansas body count.


Any reason you are reposting debunked garbage?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp



No.

Your Snopes was in the link I posted.
Plus your use of that Snopes is Straw because I posted this:

But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:
“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.


He said Hillary is dishonest and that he would have fired her if he could.
Plus the various videos of her changing her stories (lying) are way way adequate to cast doubt on her honesty, ie prove she is a liar.




No.

The lingering doubt and suspicion cannot be dispelled by what you call 'debunking'.

That is two fails. How would anyone now trust anything you say?
 
Last edited:
Your Snopes was in the link I posted.
Plus your use of that Snopes is Straw because I posted this:

He said Hillary is dishonest and that he would have fired her if he could.
Plus the various videos of her changing her stories (lying) are way way adequate to cast doubt on her honesty.

No, the lingering doubt and suspicion cannot be dispelled by what you call 'debunking'.

That is two fails. How would anyone now trust anything you say?
Your link was to a Google search result. The link to the quoted section was not apparent.

I don't care that you do or don't trust Clinton but what you posted wasn't supporting evidence. The whole nonsense about Clinton being fired from the Watergate job has been thoroughly debunked in this thread. You appear to have found an altered version of the story but it doesn't make it any less of a Internet myth.

Where's the link to your source? Are we supposed to look through all the hits on a Google search to find it?
 
Sanders is wishfully believing he can end up with more pledged delegates than Clinton resulting in an opening to persuade superdelegates to switch sides.

It's not going to happen but that is where the talk of a brokered Democratic Convention comes from.

I don't think he really believes that he can win. He is not stupid. I think he just wants to be close enough that Hillary has to address the issues he has raised. He wants her to know that the party is moving back to the left and she needs to be careful when tempted towards the middle. Even though he is older than everyone else in the race he represents the youth of the democratic party, the future. If the party ignores his supporters they could end up as screwed as the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom