Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

American 2016 Presidential Election thread part three

Recommended Posts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

You truly are creepy.

And no, your other sources, the ones you neglected to link to in other threads that I Googled. That's always a tip off.

They have every right to defend their country. Of course they are no angels but you should send a 'thank you' Letter to Israel for that, as they were a reaction to Israel invading Lebanon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why won't Hillary join the debate with Sanders and Trump?

She said shes too busy, gonna go to wall street to tell them 'hey guys, cut it out'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mika Brzezinski: It feels like Hilary Clinton is straight-out lying about her email server

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spokesman: Clinton Declined Interview With State Dept. IG, Fearing 'Anti-Clinton Bias'

By Susan Jones | May 26, 2016 | 9:14 AM EDT

(CNSNews.com) - Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to be interviewed by the Office of Inspector General of the department she once led to answer questions about her use of a private email server and personal email address to conduct State Department business.

"Through her counsel, Secretary Clinton declined OIG’s request for an interview," said the OIG report released today.

On Wednesday afternoon on CNN, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon explained why she did so.

Fallon said several times that the Clinton team decided to "prioritize" the parallel Justice Department/FBI investigation.

But pressed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Fallon cited "hints of an anti-Clinton bias" in the State Department inspector general's office. He also said the State Department OIG was "seeking to hasten its timeline to pre-judge the outcome" of the ongoing Justice Department investigation.

Blitzer asked Fallon: "Don't you think she would have wanted to cooperate with the inspector general and get to the bottom of this? The Justice Department wouldn't have minded if she would have cooperated with him."

"Well, Wolf, as I said, we made the decision to prioritize the Justice Department review. That is going to be the last word on this matter--"

"Why couldn't she do both?" Blitzer asked.

"Well, quite frankly, Wolf, it was always of concern to us, and we never could quite make sense of why this review by the State Department IG was proceeding on its own timeline, in a parallel fashion to the Justice Department review, when it was the same office that suggested that the Justice Department undertake its review."

Blitzer noted that Clinton has "answered a whole lot of questions" from the news media, and she's promised to make time for the Justice Department: "Why disrespect the inspector general of the State Department, the department she ran for four years, and not at least go to a meeting with the inspector general and answer a whole bunch of questions?"

Fallon brought up Hillary's 11 hours of testimony before the House Benghazi committee, where members probed her use of a private email server.

"It looks as if she's got something to hide when she doesn't even want to answer questions from the inspector general of the State Department," Blitzer said.

"No, Wolf -- look Wolf, if she had anything to hide, she wouldn't be volunteering since last August to go face questions from the Justice Department, where the stakes will be much higher than this State Department IG investigation.

"And as I said, the appropriateness of the State Department IG's office conducting this review at the same time when the Justice Department was already looking into the same issue is an open question.

"There were questions raised about this office during the course of its investigation," Fallon continued. "There were reports about individuals in this office coming forward and suggesting that there were hints of an anti-Clinton bias inside that office, all of that adds up to--"

"That's interesting," Blitzer interrupted. "Are you accusing the inspector general of the State Department of having an anti-Clinton bias?"


Fallon said as it turns out, the report released by the State Department inspector general on Wednesday "includes an appropriate amount of context about how widespread the use of personal email was.

"So I actually think the report today puts a lot of those questions to bed, based on how fair it was in explaining that the use of personal email was widespread and done by her predecessors, including Secretary (Colin) Powell.

"I mention it only because it was another factor in contributing to the sense of uncertainty about why this office was conducting a parallel review and seeking to hasten its timeline to pre-judge the outcome of the very same matter that the Justice Department was investigating."

"So look, at the end of the Justice Department's review, Hillary Clinton presumably, if she's asked, will have cooperated in full, answered every question that the Justice Department lawyers want to ask of her. The same will be true of all the aides that cooperate in the way that she has asked them to do.

"And at that point, she'll have cooperated in full with the full-on DOJ review; she'll have cooperated with a congressional committee's investigation into this matter. She'll have cooperated or her aides will have testified and given interviews in various lawsuits brought by third parties.

"I think that at the end of this, it will be impossible for anybody to suggest that she didn't answer every question that anybody had".

"anti Clinton bias" when the Inspector General was appointed by President Obama?

:lmao:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/spokesman-clinton-refused-cooperate-her-own-state-dept-ig-fearing-anti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

CNS News? Really? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Trump saying someone else has a big mouth? That one is rich.

I also don't understand how people stay through an entire rally of his. He just rambles on about NOTHING!!!!!!!!!! Not a damn freakin thing!!!! Like was said all he does is talk about how great he is and make childish remarks bashing people he is against. If he becomes President life will have fully imitated art as America has officially become the plot to the movie Idiocracy.

People love a good trainwreck. I think they're waiting for him to welcome strippers and a couple of cartwheeling midgets onto the stage. I'm sure it's coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNS News? Really? You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

How is it scraping the bottom of the barrel when they are reporting on an interview Clinton spokesperson gave to CNN?

"anti Clinton bias" when the Inspector General was appointed by President Obama?

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary Clinton's private server doesn't look like an honest mistake

The State Department's Office of Inspector General has released its report about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Though the report uncovers no smoking guns — no records of Clinton saying "Heh, heh, heh, they'll never FOIA my emails NOW!!!!" — what it does lay out is deeply troubling, even though her supporters have already begun the proclamations of "nothing to see here, move along."

It lays to rest the longtime Clinton defense that this use of a private server was somehow normal and allowed by government rules: It was not normal, and was not allowed by the government rules in place at the time. "The Department's current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which "has the proper level of security control to … ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information."

It also shreds the defense that "Well, Colin Powell did it too" into very fine dust, and then neatly disposes of the dust. As the report makes very clear, there are substantial differences between what the two secretaries of State did:

- Powell says he set up a private email account, in addition to his internal account, because at the time the State Department "email system in place only only permitted communication among Department staff. He therefore requested that information technology staff install the private line so that he could use his personal account to communicate with people outside the Department." This is a quite plausible reason that, around the turn of the millennium, a secretary of state would have wanted to use his own account. Powell seems not to have done enough to ensure that those records were maintained, which is a problem (though it's not clear that he was aware that he should have turned those emails over). But as far as I can tell, the most plausible explanation of Clinton's behavior is that she set up her email server expressly to keep those emails from being archived as records (and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests), which is a great deal more problematic than setting up an inadequately archived email system because there's no other way to use an increasingly vital communications technology.

- Powell had an outside line set up in his office, into which he plugged a laptop, which he used alongside his State Department computer. The IT department was, in other words, aware that this was going on, and it seems to have come up in discussions of his drive to get everyone at State access to the Internet at their desk. While the quality of information about Powell's Internet usage is not as high as it is about Clinton's (after 10 years, memories fade, people become hard to contact, and records degrade), there's no indication that he was less than transparent with staff. But folks at State clearly had no idea what was going on with Clinton's email server and, troublingly, at least two people who asked about it were apparently told to shut up and never raise the subject again.

Three things have changed pretty dramatically since Powell's day: the magnitude (and appreciation) of cybersecurity threats, the quality of the State Department systems and government rules surrounding both recordkeeping and cybersecurity. One can argue that Powell should not have used a private computer during his tenure, but he seems to have done so in consultation with the IT folks, at a time when the policy surrounding these things was "very fluid" and the State Department "was not aware of the magnitude of the security risks associated with information technology." By 2009, the magnitude of the risks was clear, and the policy was also much clearer. As far as the OIG could determine, Clinton took no action to ensure that she was in compliance with that policy, which, in fact, she emphatically was not. Officials at State told the OIG in no uncertain terms that they would not have approved her reliance on a personal email server.

- The OIG found only three instances in which State employees had relied exclusively on personal email: Powell, Clinton and Ambassador J. Scott Gration, U.S. emissary to Kenya from 2011 to 2012. Gration, who served under Clinton, was in the middle of a disciplinary process initiated against him for this email use (among other things) when he resigned. So it is impossible to argue not only that this was somehow in compliance with State's guidelines but also that Clinton might have thought it was in compliance, unless she somehow failed to notice when or why her ambassador to Kenya went missing.

- The OIG found evidence that the server was attacked and that Clinton's staff members (and presumably Clinton herself) were aware of it. (Clinton at one point seems to have expressed concern that people might be trying to hack her email.) These incidents should have been reported to computer security personnel, but OIG found no evidence that they were. Clinton's supporters have offered the wan defense that "attacked" doesn't mean "actually hacked," but of course, since they didn't report it, there was no timely investigation, so we don't really know what happened, or even whether her server setup and/or server administrator were sophisticated enough to detect a penetration had one taken place.

- This is the most profoundly amazing part of the whole story: Clinton's server administrator was hired by State as a political appointee, from which position he continued to provide support to Clinton's private email server during working hours, without telling anyone this was happening:

linton apparently paid him for the work, but it is impossible to believe that she didn't know this was happening (if her email malfunctioned during the workday, did she expect to wait until 8 or 9 that night for it to come back up?) or that she thought it was OK to hire your private server administrator as a political appointee (a diplomatic political appointee in the IT department?) and then have him keep an eye on your private server from his government office. This has an unpleasant whiff of Tammany Hall about it.

It's really hard to come away from reading this report thinking "Yup, just an honest mistake." Or indeed, "just a mistake, no big deal." Or even "no worse than others have done." I worked in bank IT for several years before I went to business school, and when this story first broke, I enjoyed an amusing hour or so envisioning what regulators would have said if we'd tried any of these sorts of excuses on them. Since then, I've had several such conversations with folks who are still laboring in the trenches of the securities industry, and their bitter laughter still rings in my ears. Why is Clinton being held to a lower standard?

Well, because she's a Clinton, and the Clintons have always acted as if the rules applied only to others. And given that Democrats boxed themselves into her name on the ticket so early on, Team Blue had little choice but to rally around and pretend that this is just a minor peccadillo, like forgetting to date the signature on your FEC filings. Lord knows, this election cycle, there's good reason to view this sort of behavior as the lesser of two evils.


"The DCIO and CIO, who prepared and approved the Senior Advisor's annual evaluations, believed that the Senior Advisor's job functions were limited to supporting mobile computing issues across the entire Department. They told OIG that while they were aware that the Senior Advisor had provided IT support to the Clinton Presidential campaign, they did not know he was providing ongoing support to the Secretary's email system during working hours. They also told OIG that they questioned whether he could support a private client during work hours, given his capacity as a full-time government employee."

But it isn't minor. Setting up an email server in a home several states away from the security and IT folks, in disregard of the rules designed to protect state secrets and ensure good government records, and then hiring your server administrator to a political slot while he keeps managing your system on government time is unacceptable behavior in a government official. If Clinton weren't the nominee, or if she had an R after her name rather than a D, her defenders would have no difficulty recognizing just how troubling it is.

That doesn't mean you necessarily have to prefer Donald Trump to her. Back when I was surveying #NeverTrump voters, I heard from more than one conservative intelligence type who basically said "I think Clinton should be in jail for what she did, and I still think she's a better choice than Trump for the presidency."

Politics is not simply a team sport, and good government is possible only if we're willing to call out misbehavior no matter who does it. Even if we still hold our nose and pull the lever for the misbehaver come November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His tweets are disgusting. "Crazy Bernie", "Crooked Hillary". Only dumb people will find this funny. For someone who wants to be POTUS this is highly disrespectful behaviour. How does he think he will do his job which requires a lot of diplomacy. Will he tweet nasty stuff about other world leaders if they do not agree with his positions. I can totally see a new Ice Age of political communications coming. Only this time it's not the Soviet Union and the Eastern Block. It will be the U.S. everyone will refuse to talk and freeze relations. Good luck with being isolated. Making America great again? What a joke.

Do you really think he cares for diplomacy?? I don't think he does, :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sanders/Trump debate is really disgusting. Sanders said he would unite the party and help Hillary if she's the nominee, and now he's doing exactly the opposite. He works hand in glove with Trump in that disgusting plot to weaken the democrats and their nominee.

I had some respect for Sanders but now it's all gone. What a scheming hypocrite :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

This is what people were worried about when it came to Sanders being placed in an actual debate against a Republican... but now that that Republican is Donald Trump, and Trump probably doesn't even know where Latin America is located, it probably wouldn't be that much of an issue. Still though. This isn't the first time Bernie has struck out in an interview on something as important as foreign relations, not to mention basic knowledge of other cultures.

Bernie Sanders acknowledges he should know more about Latin America
bernie.krauze.interview.1.jpg?itok=A4XxH
Univision anchor León Krauze sat down with Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders this week to talk about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America.
Sanders spoke about the drug war and immigration, but when pressed on the levels of violence in Central America caused by the U.S.’ deportation of hardened gang members, the Vermont Senator said “Look, you’re asking me questions about the impact on Central America, which honestly I should know more than I do know.”
Sanders balked again when asked about the situation in South America.
“You are asking me questions about Latin America that I am very interested in but right now I’m running for president of the United States,” Sanders said in response to a question about the implosion of left wing governments in Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump Views Labeled ‘Barking Mad’ by Australian Opposition Chief


488x-1.jpg


Bill Shorten, the leader of Australia’s main opposition Labor party, described some of Donald Trump’s views as “barking mad,” earning a rebuke from Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for interfering in U.S. politics.


“My party is very supportive of the Australia-America alliance” and a Labor government would work with whoever is elected U.S. president, Shorten said in a radio interview Friday. “But I got in trouble on the campaign trail for saying what I think. I think Donald Trump’s views are just barking mad in some issues.”


By airing his opinions on the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, Shorten broke an unwritten convention that Australia’s leaders don’t comment on political contests overseas -- particularly in the U.S., its most important strategic ally. Australia is in the midst of an eight-week election campaign, with Shorten’s Labor party narrowly ahead of Turnbull’s Liberal-National coalition in opinion polls.


“America is a great friend of Australia,” Shorten said. “Whoever they dish up we’ll work with but, wow, that Trump sort of, it’s the sort of the ultimate victory of celebrity politics.”


Turnbull, who is seeking a second term for the coalition in the July 2 election, said Shorten should have kept his views private, the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported.


“Our relationship with the United States is very strong,” the ABC cited Turnbull as saying. “Ill-judged remarks here and there are not going to put it at risk,” but prime ministers and prospective prime ministers should “bear in mind that the election in the United States is a matter for the Americans.”



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world hates him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

The world hates him.

Trump says that the GOP would become the Worker's Party under him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-gop-workers-party-223598

Trump's comments immediately caught attention on social media, given that "worker's party” is a term adopted by many left-wing socialist political organizations. The term has also been used by right-wing groups like the National Socialist German Worker's Party, or Nazi Party.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sanders/Trump debate is really disgusting. Sanders said he would unite the party and help Hillary if she's the nominee, and now he's doing exactly the opposite. He works hand in glove with Trump in that disgusting plot to weaken the democrats and their nominee.

I had some respect for Sanders but now it's all gone. What a scheming hypocrite :no:

I am starting to loathe his supporters more than anything. AND I AM ONE!

I agree though it's time to tone it down. He already has a handful of seats at the Convention where he will pick people to help form the party platform. I think that in and of itself is a huge win for him and his views.

Personally if I were him I would tell Hillary, look. I am going to support you hard as hell during this election, but if you don't reign in Wall Street and don't at least TRY to pass progressive as hell things that you have been saying on the campaign trail (depending on the makeup of Congress) I will run as an Independent in 2020 and increase your chances of being a 1 term President.

I in no way think Hillary should get a free pass. Bernie has moved her to the left on many issues and I do believe her feet should be held to the fire on those issues if she is elected. I think she has the tools and the brain at her disposal to be a great President IF she doesn't sell out. And if it looks like she has after 4 years, then I wouldn't be so against Bernie going in hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

I would support Bernie in a heartbeat if he got the nomination. Believe me. I'm going to be in Philly for the Democratic convention. Hold me. :drama:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rachelle of London

Why do Clinton and Sanders fans hate each other? Surely they should be using the energy to bash Trump. It confuses me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there's no hope for a better Hillary Clinton: Kevin O'Brien

People who are only now, reluctantly, boarding the Trump Train are apt to blush a little, cross their fingers and hope their candidate wouldn't be quite so shamelessly undisciplined or juvenile as president.

And it's at least possible that Donald Trump won't be as bad as he has been. It is not completely unreasonable to hope that the dignity and gravity of the office might straighten him up a little. Who's to say that after a mere 69 years spent becoming the loutish loudmouth he is today, a fellow can't change and suddenly live up to the calling of high office?

The people who endorse Hillary Clinton for president are denied the luxury of even such a slim hope. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Inauguration Day would transform her into a woman of honesty and trustworthiness.
Americans have already seen Clinton in high office. If her progression through public life — from policy dabbler with no constitutional or statutory role (first lady) to one policymaker among many (senator) to an exalted title and great individual responsibility (secretary of state) — were going to make her a better person, we would have seen it by now.

We have seen quite the opposite.

As secretary of state, Clinton proved to be secretive, self-serving and dishonest. She was also horribly — fatally — incompetent, but we'll leave qualifications aside for now to concentrate on the character side of the candidate.

The experience of high office did to Hillary Clinton what it most often does to people: It made her more sharply herself. It intensified her dominant traits, including paranoia, rather than unlocking some new quality.

This week's report of the State Department inspector general to Congress confirms that Clinton's primary interest as secretary of state was keeping secrets — not the nation's, but her own.

Despite repeated warnings that her use of a personal email account maintained on a private server for the transmission of sensitive or classified informationviolated State Department rules, Clinton did so consciously, willfully, routinely and systematically.

One staff member who raised the issue was told "never to speak of the secretary's personal email system again," the inspector general reported.

That hushing was in keeping with the IG's finding that Clinton and her inner circle were diligent about keeping her secrets secret. Investigators' questions to the State Department undersecretary for management and the Office of the Legal Adviser about Clinton's private email activities drew shrugs. They didn't know.

Clinton's unmistakable intent was to keep communications in her official capacity as a Cabinet officer out of the sight of anyone who might question her actions or her thinking. Her unambiguous goal was to subvert the State Department's legally mandated record-keeping system.

In the bargain, she put national security at risk. If she didn't understand that risk at the time, she had no business being secretary of state.

The inspector general's findings should put to rest the argument from Clinton die-hards that previous secretaries of state used private email for some official business.

One difference is that other secretaries of state weren't striving to avoid the record-keeping system. As far as is known, they saved privately sent and received official emails to the federal records system, as the law requires. Another difference is that previous secretaries' use of private email was an exception to their usual practice, whereas Clinton purposefully avoided the State Department's official system entirely.

Those actions, as well as the existence of work-related emails known to exist but not preserved on her server, put Clinton in violation of the Federal Records Act.

Repeated attempts to get at Clinton's emails through the Freedom of Information Act — especially after her fecklessness in the Benghazi crisis contributed to the deaths of four Americans, including an ambassador — turned up repeated responses that there were none.

An inspector general's report released earlier this year showed that top Clinton aides, well aware of the secretary's off-the-books email system, routinely answered — either falsely or after no attempt to find out the truth — that no Clinton emails fit the descriptions listed in FOIA requests.

Willful concealment of public records is a felony under the FOIA, as is a lack of diligence in searching for them. Clinton and her inner circle are well and truly implicated.

She won't be indicted, though. Not by this Justice Department. Not if she wins in November and chooses the next attorney general. Not even if Trump does, because that would be piling on someone who has suffered enough as a twice-rejected presidential candidate.

So all she has to do is lie, just as she's been doing since the emails story broke.

She didn't want the inconvenience of two devices to keep work and private emails separate. All of her emails were automatically saved by the State Department. She handed over all work-related emails. The private email system was set up for her husband. She never sent or received classified information on the private system. The private system was secure from hackers. The State Department approved her use of the private system.

One demonstrably false claim after another.

And here's one more: Clinton has said all along that she and her staff have cooperated with investigators.

Yet they refused to so much as be interviewed by the State Department inspector general. The latest spin on that one is that "there were hints of an anti-Clinton bias inside that office."

Poor Hillary. Nothing is ever her fault.

The inspector general's office has an anti-Clinton bias in the same way a cop investigating a bank robbery has an anti-Mugsy bias.

O'Brien is The Plain Dealer's deputy editorial page editor.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/05/sorry_but_theres_no_hope_for_a.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

markm, no one cares. You can post all the conservative columnists and pissed off BernOut commentaries you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

Why do Clinton and Sanders fans hate each other? Surely they should be using the energy to bash Trump. It confuses me

It's one-sided (Bernie Sanders), and it's sour grapes from a group that doesn't understand how the political system works, so they want to stamp their feet and throw temper tantrums until they get their way. Too bad they never seem to get up and get out to vote. Bernie thinks everyone's forgotten that he tried to get Obama primaried in 2012 and has been a Democrat for about two seconds, not to mention he's been touting text trashing the current president. Stuff like that tends to piss off voters.

Nate Silver: The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Rachelle of London

I've legit seen comments from Clinton supporters on Facebook pages calling Bernie old grandpa. I even commented on one asking if they think Hillary is 25? :lmao: and then some awful comments about Hillary from Bernie supporters, seriously why spend time fighting against your own when Trump is the opposition. Skin posted that a few weeks ago but I didn't quite get it until I saw the "drama"'for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro

All three are senior citizens, or pensioners, as you would call them in the UK. Hillary being the youngest of the three. None of them should be casting stones when it comes to age. That being said, Sanders is the only one still pretending that he can win the nomination. He can't. He wants the donations to keep pouring in though (they've dried up considerably) and I'm sure having the world's attention for the first time in his political life is working wonders for his ego. He's bought into his own hype. Hillary's fighting Trump. Sanders is still in primary mode fighting for the Democratic nomination. As far as Clinton and the Democratic Party is concerned, not to mention the math and reality, the race is over, she won. He's just a pest at this point trashing her while she's actually fighting the real battle and that's why Bernie is hurting any credibility he had with Democrats that initially supported him. There are House and Senate seats at stake this year too. Bernie's antics are putting the entire party in jeopardy now.

What Sanders supporters did in Nevada is disgraceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mauro
Trump backs out of debate against Sanders after tech company offers to pay for it


Trump-051816-800x430.jpg


Donald Trump reneged on his intention to debate Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday in a brief statement on his website.


“Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher,” the statement read.


The statement came to light shortly after Traction and Scale CEO Richie Hecker volunteered to offer the $10 million the GOP nominee had wanted to be donated to charity as a condition of debating Sanders.


“The networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues,” Trump said in his statement. “Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders — and it would be an easy payday — I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”


The prospect of a debate between the senator and the real estate magnate came about following Trump’s appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live earlier this week, when Trump expressed willingness to engage with Sanders, who currently trails Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sanders/Trump debate is really disgusting. Sanders said he would unite the party and help Hillary if she's the nominee, and now he's doing exactly the opposite. He works hand in glove with Trump in that disgusting plot to weaken the democrats and their nominee.

I had some respect for Sanders but now it's all gone. What a scheming hypocrite :no:

The race is not over and he always said he's gonna stick to the end.

If he supports Hilary or not, that would be after he suspends his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

markm, no one cares. You can post all the conservative columnists and pissed off BernOut commentaries you want.

For real.

And Trump is a pussy for backing out. Probably knows Sanders would clean his clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Articles I have read said Powell used a private email address but didn't use a personal sever.

"Powell also noted some ways his situation was different from Clintons, for example, that he used a commercial email account. I had no private server, no private domain. I did not take [any messages] anywhere when I left the department, he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748#ixzz49naWRLC7

Private email? Personal server? Who cares? What difference does it make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36404323

For a candidate to polarise opinion to the point of violence is really worrying. Anyone pragmatic would pull out realising that their running is only further dividing their country. Unfortunately Donald Trump is not pragmatic and seems to believe he is the saviour of the USA.

My friends in Washington call his supporters "low information voters", people who believe his soundbites and will not do any research for themselves to find out the truth.

There has never been a more important time for the Democrats to come together and unite behind one candidate. Bernie, for all he was supposed to be a breath of fresh air, is acting now like a typical ego driven politician. He needs to get over himself, realise he needs to quit the race for the sake of the country and throw all his support behind Hilary.

It does however make me laugh when people speak about Bernie's left wing politics. Left wing in the USA is not very left wing in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Sanders/Trump debate is really disgusting. Sanders said he would unite the party and help Hillary if she's the nominee, and now he's doing exactly the opposite. He works hand in glove with Trump in that disgusting plot to weaken the democrats and their nominee.

I had some respect for Sanders but now it's all gone. What a scheming hypocrite :no:

Screw this damn party crap already. Bernie thinks he's better for the country and he's gotta do what he's gotta do. Hillary ain't the nominee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...