thanks for posting.

Most of the people who are against her now were vehemently against her in 2008 and for Obama. Now they criticize Obama like he is some sort of right winged pariah. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put two grains of salt in listening to their advice.

CU, per a spokesman will give us (conservatives) a even playing ground. Also destroying Unions as well (except Police and Fire).

This shite has been brewing for over 30 years thanks for their savior Ronald R.

USSC putting W into office was one of the USA biggest mistakes and I don't think we will ever fully recoup from that BS.

I like that line "swimming with the Sharks"-- it sums up a feeling I couldn't express very well.

for over 25 years. Mimicking her? lol.

and the Clintons had a big money problem BEFORE CU.

As many, many liberals are saying, she has a problem and she needs to fucking fix it- now.

Or is this just more linking up to RW smear campaigns?

I want to know exactly what problem she had with big money prior?

What is your evidence beside saying it over and over with nothing to back it up.

And to call Hillary a Washington insider when he's been there as longer than she has been is laughable.

how about Doyle McManus? John Cassidy?

I've posted pieces by all of them about this issue in the past few days. YOU have seen them. Stop being disingenuous.

and yeah, he's been there- but as an insider like Hill? Not so much. duh.

She's a corporately compromised politician without the political courage to weigh in on tough issues. Skirt, avoid and dodge.

<snip>

When she was nominated as secretary of State in 2009, Clinton promised that she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

“Out of [an] abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance … of a conflict,” Clinton said, the foundation would agree to strict rules: It would disclose all its donors and clear new contributions from foreign governments with the State Department.


Only that didn't happen. The biggest branch of the Clintons' charitable network, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, never complied with the agreement at all, according to the Boston Globe. It neither disclosed its donors nor cleared new contributions. (A spokesman said they didn't think it was necessary. After media inquiries, the program published a list of donors last month.) The Clinton Foundation also failed to clear a donation of $500,000 from Algeria. (An oversight, the foundation said.) And the foundation's Canadian affiliate collected millions of dollars without disclosing donors' names. (Canadian law guarantees privacy to donors, but the foundation could have asked them to voluntarily disclose their identities; it didn't until last week.)

Beyond the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates, former President Bill Clinton's personal income has raised eyebrows, too.

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

<snip>

Over the past several years, Bill Clinton has been given millions of dollars for foreign and domestic speeches, with the greatest number of sponsors coming from the financial industry. At the same time, he solicited and received millions of dollars from foreign and domestic interests, including. Many of the donors and sponsors had interests that were affected by State Department policies, and all of the donors, past and current, have interests that would be affected by a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Hillary Clinton has not addressed the issue publicly, but some of her defenders have argued that without a smoking gun, or evidence of quid pro quo, there’s nothing to be concerned about.

As the framers knew, we don’t need that in order to be concerned.

<snip>

I am a Democrat. I will vote Democratic in the general election. But I refuse to allow my party to be silent in the face of serious accusations of conflict of interest. There are two reasons for this. I expect that the GOP candidate will use this in 2016 to make explicit that Bill Clinton’s $500,000 went into his personal account, the one he shares with Hillary Clinton. Silence now doesn’t change the structure of the argument.

<snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

I don't care what mouthpiece it comes from, it's just repeating bullshit.

you just make more FALSE charges. Accusing someone like Teachout of being a right wing mouthpiece is both pathetic and laughable.

Did she make a promise to the Obama admin? Yes. Did she keep it? No. Did Bill make millions and millions on speeches from foreign governments and corporations while she was SoS? Yes. Is that illegal? No. How does it appear? Awful to anyone who isn't so partisan that they've become blind.

proof that none of that legal activity caused a favor to someone?

NO YOU DON'T... And yes it all comes from the Right Wing. You be my guest and keep using it...

You got nothing... nothing illegal was done and you don't have, nor do they have one iota of proof.. Just the suggestion.

I deal with facts... bring them when you have them... Otherwise I will continue to let you know that it does all stem from the right wing. You know people aren't beyond using innuendo against persons they wish to not see elected.

no one is arguing that anything was illegal. but that is a sadly low bar. and the FACT is that it doesn't all come from the right wing as many liberals are presenting cogent cases of why there are problems with the Clinton Foundation.

You make stuff up- like the claim in the op that Bernie is "mimicking" Hillary on CU.

You use the precise argument in defense of Hillary and the Foundation issues that Teachout points to as a problem.

There are no FACTS of any wrong doing... How could I possibly be making my own facts based upon real facts????

I don't deal with innuendo... some do...

"raised eyebrows" as a fact you silly girl.

So when are you going to stop?

I was speaking of her sources... not her... but let the insults continue.

The answer to that is NO. The point is they are one in the same and to try to paint it as some big dividing issue is pure crap.

Your assertion that he is mimicking her is what seems divisive.

And the story around here as been that Hillary is a fundraising pariah... And that Bernie is as pure as the white driven snow..... And Hillary is sucks on this issue.

So, please excuse me for making a point.

There has never been a point in Hillary's life that she has ever been for unaccountable money in elections and politics.

I was making a comment about your consistent behavior.

Personal insults.

Funny, the earliest link I can find for Clinton wanting to over turn Citizens United was this year just prior to announcing.

Sanders proposed the first constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United on December 8, 2011. Even Obama praised it and endorsed it when it was again proposed in 2012. Do you have a link from either 2011 or 2012 of Clinton also supporting said amendment?

Do you have a link from 2010 to 2012 at all prior to Sanders putting forth the amendment where she clearly goes on record that she wants a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United?

If not, and I have not found any in an exhaustive search this morning, then no, he is not mimicking her. She is mimicking him.

And I am seeing it more times than I really wish I would here after Sanders announced.

Lies about him and embellishments about her by supporters is a really stupid road to head down.

Bernie- not that I'm going to tell the HDF (Hillary Defense Force) what they are, but instead they're resorting to the stupidest, most easily discredited lies. You gotta wonder.

But if you can compromise your principles on very important issues, don't hold others to a different standard.

I didn't know private citizens could submit legislation.

I have wasted my life.

wow... a history of Citizens United and Hillary's calling for a constitutional amendment to undo it, is "obvious mendacious shit"?

Bernie sounds a lot like Clinton on the issue... Don't know what else to tell you.

Except it is not "obvious mendacious shit".

what part of he introduced a Constitutional Amendment years before Hillary said boo about it, don't you get? And he sounds like her? what shameless bull.

You want to say Hillary just mimicking Bernie... that's pretty much what you said..

Well, someone who has been part of the Washington establishment for over 30 years is going to have a hell of lot more votes.

You have proof that Hillary has ever been for unaccountable money at any time in her life?

I am not a lobbyist, except in the very technical sense that I did once submit a bill to my state senator and Massachusetts state law considered that lobbying. She then put it forward.

I am so damn stupid.

My other problem is that I spend a lot of time researching chemtrails.

The claim is that Sanders is mimicking Clinton because supposedly Clinton came out against Citizens United before he did.

The facts are that he proposed constitutional amendments for several years as proof that he is against CU. Clinton did not once say, like Obama actually did, that hey that's a great idea! If I am ever running for office again, I would be for that amendment. She finally made a statement in 2015 just prior to running for office.

Instead of providing any sort of factual proof that between 2010 and 2015 Hilary R. Clinton made any public pronouncement condemning Citizens United, you post bullshit snark as a distraction.

So in other words, either you can't read and comprehend what this thread is about, or you are just disingenuous and blind in your support of Clinton even in the face of facts presented that contradict the lie being posted in the OP.

are you so angry?

I may post snark but you are just hateful. You are going to have a very rough year.

You start with snark, which by the way is most certainly insulting.

And then when you get called out on it, you act like you are the victim & that I am 'hateful'.

I am going to have a great year.

Don't confuse passionate rebuttals of bullshit with anger.

He would not understand your behavior.

publicly, or write a bill for someone in Congress to try to get passed, unless and until you run for President. And, somehow also determines whether Hillary picked this issue up from Sanders or Sanders picked it up from Hillary, or neither.

Because chem trails.


All of which misses the more important issue of whether this is realistic for either Hillary or Bernie to promise. Please see Reply 16.

be regulated. On the other other hand, she is not to blame for the decision, either.

And it does not much matter whether Sanders is mimicking her or she is mimicking him. (In reality, both a probably going by polls.) The odds against a Constitutional amendment overturning CU are significant. I don't see it happening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776799

(Note: That was written before Bernie entered the fray, but it now applies to him as well as to Hillary.)

That aside, Bernie has lived what he talks about all his life. The same is not true of Hillary. Take that to heart or don't. It's true.

Sid

Someday over the rainbow.

K & R