vintx
vintx's JournalVladimir Putin Has Everything He Needs to Blackmail Hillary Clinton
RUMINT (Rumor Intelligence) is rife with reports that Russian intelligence agencies are preparing to release emails “hacked” from Hillary Clinton’s rogue Internet email server.
Agreed, this sounds a bit like a blackmail plot in a 1940s radio detective thriller or a soap opera. Except it isn’t. We live in a world where blood gets spilled.
...
Russian blackmail classifies as a potential threat, and another reason I believe a full and complete investigation of Hillary Clinton’s national security crime requires a special prosecutor. By the way, on June 14 U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan referred to the FBI investigation as a “criminal investigation,” confirming what White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said June 9. The executive and judicial branches are now in agreement.
So. Will Vlad blackmail Hillary? Or, “When Will Vlad blackmail Hillary?” Sure, it’s speculation. It’s a scenario. It’s like a radio-era detective serial.
Stay tuned for the next episode.
http://observer.com/2016/06/vladimir-putin-has-everything-he-needs-to-blackmail-hillary-clinton/
Bernie said he will be in it till the convention. That is what his supporters want.
Why are some people here so incensed that he won't bow out now despite knowing this?
Puerto Rico's Democratic primary looks to be as big of a clusterfuck as any other.
Anyone seen anything about this in the media?
Why It Matters That Hillary Supported Welfare Reform
The Clintons have championed welfare reform for over 20 years—even as study after study has shown that it has severely harmed poor families, and driven a historic number of black and Latino children into deep poverty. In the early 1990s, they designed a strategy to lure white voters back to the Democratic Party: capitalize on white disgust toward “dependent” black and Latina mothers on welfare within a liberal veneer that promised them a “hand-up, rather than a handout.” As first lady, she not only cheered her husband’s goal to “end welfare as we know it,” but she also helped whip up support for the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the legislation that remade the welfare system: “I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage,” she recounted in her 2003 memoir Living History. Later, as senator, she continued to applaud it, referring in one 2002 interview to people who had left welfare as “no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive.” Even as recently as her 2008 run for president, she defended the welfare-to-work legislation as “enormously successful,” while lamenting that “people who are more vulnerable” would suffer more during the recession.
“They don’t acknowledge the number of people who were hurt. It’s just not in their lens,” Peter Edelman, a friend of Hillary’s since law school and former assistant secretary of social services at the Department of Health and Human Services, said of the Clintons in 2008.
But in her current campaign for president, Clinton, who is running as a “pragmatic progressive,” has publicly avoided the issue. At a time when many Americans are outraged over economic and racial injustice, she is quiet on the subject of welfare reform, because it tells a story of how she betrayed poor people of color and undermines her image as a feminist candidate who has been a lifelong champion for women and children.
(More at link)
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/
Is she still silent on this?
I suppose it's supposed to be good enough that she's no longer defending it?
It's cute how Hillary's fans are acting like social media is silly and meaningless.
How much did her campaign spend to get people to post in support of her?
Face it, young people aren't buying into this two party, good cop / bad cop bullshit. They dominate social media and their dissatisfaction with the Democratic party's Republican-liteness is obvious.
Don't blame liberals if your candidate loses. As Skinner said, the amount of progressives who won't vote for her is tiny.
It's all the middle of the road, not so politically inclined, 'politics is bullshit so why bother' types who will be her undoing, should she fall to win them over in the coming months.
Fortunately she will probably be running against Trump. His vulgar awfulness will motivate some people to vote against him. Many, however, know that the real power is with Congress, which thanks to the two party's collusion to maintain a stranglehold on power is gerrymandered beyond hope.
We like to point the finger at Republicans and say how corrupt and all about power and money they are. This election will show how few people on the left are still under the impression that none of that applies to Dems.
Stop acting like progressives would bear the blame for a Clinton loss.
Most of the posters here are not shy about explaining how she doesn't need our votes, how most of Bernie's supporters will vote for her, and how it's really undecided and swing voters who will decide the outcome.
Someone posted a poll showing she's expected to wipe the floor with trump. Well good. Then stop being assholes to we who will not hold our noses on this one.
You have no right to our votes and neither does she. And most of you are convinced you don't need us anyway.
Go beg and bully the undecideds and swing voters and leave us alone re: our vote in November.
I've seen a lot of puff pieces about Hillary's excuses and justifications for her IWR vote.
Thought I'd post this to #correcttherecord
Clinton supporters want Democratic voters to forgive their candidate’s support for the most disastrous foreign policy decision in decades. They shouldn’t.
1. “Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”
At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later. (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)
Furthermore, if then-Senator Clinton’s desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn’t have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.
In fact, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country. “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”
When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
(more at link)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18813/the-five-lamest-excuses-for-hillary-clintons-vote-to-invade-iraq
Andy Stephenson would be so proud.
When did people get so blase about black box voting?
Remember when discrepancies between exit polling and results raised eyebrows? I do.
Great documentary about HRC's political background
In the video, she describes several lobbyists who are also superdelegates (e.g. the guy from Pfizer)
How do lobbyists become superdelegates?
Doesn't that seem just a teensy bit skeevy to anyone else?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 2, 2016, 10:50 AMNumber of posts: 1,748