Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
26 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
andrea mitchell thinks Hillary has a 'lot of explaining to do' (Original Post) spanone Oct 2015 OP
she is disgusting riversedge Oct 2015 #1
LOL! Love that picture Politicalboi Oct 2015 #2
Pretty much everyone involved has more explaining to do, but mostly Petraeus, Donilon, Ben Rhodes, TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #3
as we all know, this is all about making Hillary 'untrustworthy'. spanone Oct 2015 #4
Most to be gained politically by focusing on her. They gave up on trying to damage Obama with it, TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #7
she was a hero, only moments ago jberryhill Oct 2015 #5
a lot can happen in those few moments I guess. still_one Oct 2015 #8
not to moi. never. spanone Oct 2015 #9
Garbage pundits, destroying the news with their egos. Rex Oct 2015 #6
Alan (Clinton budget surpluses are bad) Greenspan redstateblues Oct 2015 #12
IT goes back to Ronald Reagan and Greenspan, they pulled off the biggest crime in American history. Rex Oct 2015 #15
Oh, man, I thought she was talking about the CIA explaining more about Rose Siding Oct 2015 #10
GERSBERMS! Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #11
who can dispute... spanone Oct 2015 #13
Mer fervert berk Warren DeMontague Oct 2015 #14
She is as bad as chuck Todd! mfcorey1 Oct 2015 #16
Yes, Hillary has a lot of explaining to do and she is doing it! nt kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #17
We share a birthday, same day and year. tavernier Oct 2015 #18
you certainly did! spanone Oct 2015 #19
Yep. By a mile. AndreaCG Oct 2015 #20
As birth sisters (blech) I see some similarities: tavernier Oct 2015 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author BigDemVoter Oct 2015 #21
Oh, ok!! tavernier Oct 2015 #24
That would explain a lot. smirkymonkey Oct 2015 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author BigDemVoter Oct 2015 #26
I don't like or dislike her donna123 Oct 2015 #22
 

Politicalboi

(15,189 posts)
2. LOL! Love that picture
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:09 PM
Oct 2015

Mrs. Greenspan needs her job. How will she and her husband Alan live without her income.

Her and Dead Intern Joe should be canned.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
3. Pretty much everyone involved has more explaining to do, but mostly Petraeus, Donilon, Ben Rhodes,
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:10 PM
Oct 2015

Leon Panetta, Gen. Dempsey. You know, the people the GOP don't want to hurt.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
7. Most to be gained politically by focusing on her. They gave up on trying to damage Obama with it,
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:13 PM
Oct 2015

after he won his second term. But they don't want to hurt the Deep State guys, the military, and the Obama administration insiders who aren't ever going to run for office.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
6. Garbage pundits, destroying the news with their egos.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:12 PM
Oct 2015

Considering her husband is responsible for so much misery in this country, she should find a rock to hide under. Wait until the day comes, that the commoner finds out just how much fucking over of America the Greenspans have done.

That picture is perfect, the entitled spewing GOP propaganda machine is numb to truth or honesty.

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
12. Alan (Clinton budget surpluses are bad) Greenspan
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:17 PM
Oct 2015

his capitulation to W was the beginning of the economic chaos that ensued.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
15. IT goes back to Ronald Reagan and Greenspan, they pulled off the biggest crime in American history.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:21 PM
Oct 2015
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/how-ronald-reagan-and-alan-greenspan-pulled-off-the-greatest-fraud-ever-perpetrated-against-the-american-people/

David Leonhardt’s article, “Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer,” in Tuesday’s New York Times was excellent, but it just scratches the tip of the iceberg of how the rich have gained at the expense of the working class during the past three decades. When Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, he abandoned the traditional economic policies, under which the United States had operated for the previous 40 years, and launched the nation in a dangerous new direction. As Newsweek magazine put it in its March 2, 1981 issue, “Reagan thus gambled the future — his own, his party’s, and in some measure the nation’s—on a perilous and largely untested new course called supply-side economics.”

Essentially, Reagan switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy, where the government continued its heavy spending, but used borrowed money instead of tax revenue to pay the bills. The results were catastrophic. Although it had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!

Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan pulled off one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated against the American people in the history of this great nation, and the underlying scam is still alive and well, more than a quarter century later. It represents the very foundation upon which the economic malpractice that led the nation to the great economic collapse of 2008 was built. Ronald Reagan was a cunning politician, but he didn’t know much about economics. Alan Greenspan was an economist, who had no reluctance to work with a politician on a plan that would further the cause of the right-wing goals that both he and President Reagan shared.

Rose Siding

(32,623 posts)
10. Oh, man, I thought she was talking about the CIA explaining more about
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:14 PM
Oct 2015

their security of the intelligence post. No? crap!

tavernier

(12,383 posts)
18. We share a birthday, same day and year.
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 04:40 PM
Oct 2015

She got the skinny bitch gene. I opted for heart and integrity. I win.

Response to spanone (Original post)

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
25. That would explain a lot.
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 03:29 AM
Oct 2015

Also, she's probably just an asshole. Who is drunk. Which makes her even a bigger asshole.

Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #25)

donna123

(182 posts)
22. I don't like or dislike her
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:43 PM
Oct 2015

but I don't understand how in the world someone like her gets her own show. She stutters and can't get words out. She cannot seem to speak extemporaneously. She seems smart enough but she simply does not have the gift of speech. Perhaps working behind the scenes would be a better fit for her because she is not smooth onscreen. I suspect the reason she has a show is for political reasons, ie knowing the right people, because it is certainly not due to talent in this particular area.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»andrea mitchell thinks Hi...