James DiEugenio Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 To make excuses the ineptness of the HRC campaign is, in my view, to place the blame everywhere except where it should be. And that is on Podesta, Mook and HRC. I mean was anyone complaining about voter suppression when Obama won twice? The GOP has been doing this stuff since the 1980's. HRC picked poor campaign managers both times, Penn and Mook. I can excuse it once, but not twice. I mean Obama aced it with Plouffe. He took Penn to school. And the thing is, she did not fire either guy. The other way to look at it is that she was just not a winning candidate. And there is some truth to that. Not a good campaigner or speaker. Unlike her hubby, she had a hard time connecting with people. But to me, the giveaway was in her pick of Kaine as VP. She could have picked Warren or Sanders. And that would have given her a real blast off after the convention, and really helped her in those Rust Belt states. But she didn't. Now, Sanders would have beaten Trump pretty soundly. I think it was by 12 points in the poll I saw taken a week before the election. To me that is pretty good evidence of the fact that out of the first tier candidates--BIden, Warren, Sanders, Clinton--she was the one that Trump could defeat, and for a multitude of reasons, not just those I went through above. The progressive part of the Democratic Party had seen too much of what Clintonism was. And then the stuff about the DNC came out. They were not going to turn out or work for HRC. And unlike Obama, because of her hubby, she could not even convey the illusion of being a real progressive. Why do I use the word illusion? It was Obama who got Tom Perez to run for DNC chair after Ellison was the front runner. This is why I will never vote for Biden. Being in California I am in a safe state so I can vote Green to avoid that if I have to. I hope I don't have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) Biden opened a campaign headquarters in Trump's head. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/29/donald-trump-joe-biden-battle-twitter-over-labor-union-support/3616779002/ Edited April 30, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 1, 2019 Author Share Posted May 1, 2019 Prosecutors subpoena Roger Stone associate Credico Randy Credico, a radio host, is expected to shed light on Stone’s efforts to connect with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election. By NATASHA BERTRAND 04/30/2019 03:26 PM EDT Updated 04/30/2019 04:28 PM EDT https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/roger-stone-randy-credico-subpoena-1294231?fbclid=IwAR1UGj65foWOX8YR9xTGEcXcDH1MjJETRkk1wgeT3tbQmbWXMpIWt0Fv3SE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 53 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said: Doug shares blue links. So What. Color of the link doesn't matter, content does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Since Stone goes all the way back to Nixon. Just wondering if anyone else saw this clip of Lindsey Graham ranting about Nixon, Watergate and Clinton regarding subpoena's. Given his position now, and Elijah Cummings statement today, sounds like hypocrisy. https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-once-said-failing-comply-subpoenas-impeachable-1407455 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/elijah-cummings-carl-kline-prison-1295146 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said: Since Stone goes all the way back to Nixon. Just wondering if anyone else saw this clip of Lindsey Graham ranting about Nixon, Watergate and Clinton regarding subpoena's. Given his position now, and Elijah Cummings statement today, sounds like hypocrisy. https://www.newsweek.com/lindsey-graham-once-said-failing-comply-subpoenas-impeachable-1407455 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/30/elijah-cummings-carl-kline-prison-1295146 Not an inside joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote” I quoted the phrase used in the media by a particular candidate to blame Trump's win on a congregate of the populace that she so designated (for good or ill) as Trump's electors, and I used it with historical and grammatical correctness, as in: "A basket of deplorables." For the record, I have been so disappointed in the Democratic Party through the Clinton and Obama years that I didn't vote Democrat in 2016, even to spare us Trump. I damn well didn't believe he'd win, either. Edited May 1, 2019 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 6 hours ago, David Andrews said: David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote” I quoted the phrase used in the media by a particular candidate to blame Trump's win on a congregate of the populace that she so designated (for good or ill) as Trump's electors, and I used it with historical and grammatical correctness, as in: "A basket of deplorables." For the record, I have been so disappointed in the Democratic Party through the Clinton and Obama years that I didn't vote Democrat in 2016, even to spare us Trump. I damn well didn't believe he'd win, either. I couldn’t support HRC because of the threat that dynastic power poses to democracy. Even without that specific, principled, approach I think that the baggage of a continued Clinton Whte House would carry drove moderates and conservatives that despise Trump into his camp. The peaceful purge of power that elections and term-limits afford are a gift that should never be dismissed. HRC got Trump elected; I don’t think a Trump candidacy would have been possible without a Clinton candidacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 16 hours ago, Michael Clark said: I couldn’t support HRC because of the threat that dynastic power poses to democracy. Even without that specific, principled, approach I think that the baggage of a continued Clinton Whte House would carry drove moderates and conservatives that despise Trump into his camp. The peaceful purge of power that elections and term-limits afford are a gift that should never be dismissed. HRC got Trump elected; I don’t think a Trump candidacy would have been possible without a Clinton candidacy. I find this logic reasonable. But we’ve had two + years of Trump. What do you think now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, Michael Clark said: I don’t think a Trump candidacy would have been possible without a Clinton candidacy. I'm not so sure about that. The alternative was Bernie Sanders and, while I think he would make a fantastic president, I also think there remains an awful lot of voters who fear the "socialist" label and so wouldn't have voted for him. HRC isn't as bad as a lot of people say she is. (In fact she is highly qualified.) She was unfairly painted as evil by the conservative media, and low-information voters fell for it; she wasn't liberal enough for those on the far left and they also painted her as evil; her October Surprise didn't help any. And then finally we discover that there are apparently a lot of voters who don't care if their president is a l-y-i-n-g, hating, buffoon as long as he's not a Washington politician. Makes no sense to me. Edited May 2, 2019 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 No one found this notable? The Hill recently reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko stated that he was opening “a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Surprisingly, the report, which focuses on Sytnyk, makes no mention of Leshchenko—or of the December court ruling which determined that both Leshchenko and Sytnyk violated Ukrainian law. MIchael Isikoff was working with those people? The guy who said that the Paula Jones case was the same as the Anita Hill case? And then worked with Jonah Goldberg on the Lewinsky case? The idea of an "anti corruption committee" in Ukraine is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: No one found this notable? The Hill recently reported that Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko stated that he was opening “a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” Surprisingly, the report, which focuses on Sytnyk, makes no mention of Leshchenko—or of the December court ruling which determined that both Leshchenko and Sytnyk violated Ukrainian law. MIchael Isikoff was working with those people? The guy who said that the Paula Jones case was the same as the Anita Hill case? And then worked with Jonah Goldberg on the Lewinsky case? The idea of an "anti corruption committee" in Ukraine is an oxymoron. [Note: The politics of the Ukraine are convoluted to say the least.] From the article "The decision to reopen the investigation into Burisma was made in March by the current Ukrainian prosecutor general, who had cleared Hunter Biden’s employer more than two years ago. The announcement came in the midst of Ukraine’s contentious presidential election, and was seen in some quarters as an effort by the prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, to curry favor from the Trump administration for his boss and ally, the incumbent president, Petro O. Poroshenko." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/us/politics/biden-son-ukraine.html Edited May 2, 2019 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 (edited) Trump ready to use government to destroy Democratic nominee whoever that may be: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/02/trump-is-already-set-use-government-destroy-democratic-nominee/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-g%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&utm_term=.c14539f4a505 From the article: But in this case, the Times acknowledges the story’s provenance right in the headline: “Biden Faces Conflict of Interest Questions That Are Being Promoted by Trump and Allies.” Regular readers will know that I’m hardly Joe Biden’s biggest fan, but this story seems particularly weak in its implication that Biden did anything remotely wrong. What it comes down to is that, as vice president, he advanced Obama administration policy by pressing Ukraine to fight corruption, a perfectly worthy goal shared by lots of countries. Edited May 2, 2019 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 The Curious Case of William P. Barr https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmmhzmhouic&fbclid=IwAR2HACLaqpKnzzcqrfy2otf8ijgHNfHB5pFYThfRC4zCnCfoDy6-jV6I9xs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted May 2, 2019 Author Share Posted May 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: Ukraine on Fire - (Oliver Stone) does a good job of explaining Ukraine. Is it a coincidence that the son of Oliver Stone, the producer and director of the anti-U.S./pro-Russia propaganda film titled "Ukraine on Fire," hosts "Watching the Hawks" on RT, the American pay television news channel based in Washington, D.C. which is part of the RT network, a global multilingual television news network based in Moscow and Russia funded by the Russian government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now