|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Hillary in 2016 /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1390700752 Message started by Paraquat on 01/25/14 at 17:45:51 |
|
Title: Hillary in 2016 Post by Paraquat on 01/25/14 at 17:45:51 http://cdn.goodmenproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/hilaryy.jpg Don’t look now but the Hillary 2016 campaign is picking up major steam. There was huge news the other day inside the race for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president when The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton’s camp has secured the backing of major Democratic super PAC Priorities USA Action. As the piece reports:The group, Priorities USA Action, which played a pivotal role in helping re-elect President Obama, also named new directors to steer the organization, appointments that will both cement the group’s pro-Clinton tilt and thrust veterans of Mr. Obama’s political and fund-raising operation into the center of the post-Obama Democratic Party.The move marks perhaps the earliest-ever start to big-dollar fund-raising in support of a nonincumbent presidential candidate, providing a fund-raising portal for wealthy Clinton supporters eager to help her White House prospects — and to the legions of others eager to ingratiate themselves with Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.In many ways the group itself backing Clinton is kind of immaterial. A super PAC is really only as powerful as its rich donors want to make it, hence why a lot of the big ones from 2012 just folded up after the election. And Hillary’s supporters and donors could have always just started their own giant Super PAC if they wanted to.Instead the big news from the article is the group of veterans of Obama’s political campaigns who have now effectively singed on to Team Clinton. Party aligned campaign professionals are an import group in the invisible primary and so many prominent ones backing Hillary is great news for her.Like The Good Men Project on FacebookPhoto by J. Scott Applewhite/AP http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hillarys-big-win/ --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Serowbot on 01/25/14 at 21:27:32 Well,.. I'll sing on to that... :-/... |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/25/14 at 21:31:40 I declared her the winner last year,.,.its her turn |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by raydawg on 01/25/14 at 21:50:19 Gee...wouldn't this be her third term :-? I think its pretty much a given she was in charge while Billy hunted down hummers. I think we would be in a much better place had she won instead of Obama. She knows the political process having been raised on her daddy's knee (Hugh E. Rodham) with Chicago and New York style politics. Any success that came from her hubbies administration was most likely her doing. Hate her or love her, she can be very effective. Fact is she only lost to Obama because he was Black......not because he was a better administrator. She has to be the favorite at this stage of the game.... If I had crossed her to ride the Obama wave, I'd be concerned, if she does indeed win :-X |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/26/14 at 02:38:43 She lost to bammy cuz she agreed to. They met w/ the Bilderbergers while the media was kept captive on a plane, dont you remember? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Trippah on 01/26/14 at 19:00:52 No, she lost to Obama cause he was a better speaker and had less spousal baggage (a lot of people like Bill because he didn't get into any big wars and was a republican economically eg NAFTA- BUT a lot hated him). Obama has an attractive wife and as a newcomer to this country was relatively unknown. ;D ;D ;D Hillary's failure to protect the Embassy people at Benghazi and her refusal to answer questions about it shows how ruthless she can be and is also the reason I'd never vote for her. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/26/14 at 20:08:36 No, It is as I said, look back,, she stood down after the B/berg meeting. Look back, the press were held on a plane,,dont you remember that stuff? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by RatdogWillie on 01/27/14 at 07:49:40 The Clintons' Body Count: http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/27/14 at 07:58:22 Look up the term arkancide coined, due to the number of people who "committed suicide" in Arkansas, people who knew the clintons. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Paraquat on 01/27/14 at 09:29:29 Interesting link. --Steve |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/27/14 at 10:40:47 Dawg,, If youll watch the story of Waco youll SEE 2 of those bodyguards gunned down. They enter a 2nd story window & a few seconds after they enter, the guy who is behind them sticks his gun thru the window & just starts shooting, I wonder how many people watched that & didnt even realize they were witnessing murders.. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by pgambr on 01/27/14 at 13:51:28 She has been chosen. Bammy's super-pacs are already aligning themselves. I have read they are going to be coming out with a Hilary miniseries as well. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/27/14 at 16:35:32 & Bammy is clearing the way. He is attacking her potential enemies, Note the recent charges against 2 men,, one a film maker, the other an elected official,, OHH for their names,, I cant remember right now,., |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Trippah on 01/28/14 at 10:05:23 What if Hillary married Jeb, we could have a King and Queen or a Queen and Crown Prince. ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 01/28/14 at 17:21:55 Pardon me, but wouldnt that be CLOWN Prince? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Trippah on 02/05/14 at 18:40:04 well, it wouldn't really matter, as all they would see of their subjects is the crown of their heads - bent over the toilets perpetually vomiting. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by RatdogWillie on 03/17/14 at 17:56:34 http://thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/01/hillary-wink.jpg Why the country will not survive a Hillary presidency http://intellihub.com/country-will-survive-hillary-presidency/ |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by PerrydaSavage on 03/24/14 at 12:19:40 5A7C677E7E6F660E0 wrote:
Hmmm ... I beg to differ ... not that Hillary is a prize either ... |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Trippah on 03/24/14 at 14:11:49 Well, that's what I'm often told about the First Lady; however, she wouldn't necessarily by my cuppa. But then Hilary would be strychnine to me. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/24/14 at 18:28:18 I call the current First Lady the First Wookie.. & HIllary? REALLY? Fo' REAL?? Now,, you look at Slick Willy & you go back to those days when they met,, she wasnt exactly what Id call "Hot" even back then,,,But Bill? He didnt ( best I can tell) have any problems finding a girl.. SO,, Why did he hook up with HER?? I have an idea or 3,, basically, it was an "arranged" marriage,, for political expediency, as he was being groomed for the presidency, just as our current liar in chief was groomed from early on., MY Opinion, you believe as suits ya. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by North Country on 03/27/14 at 18:11:13 Umm, as I recall we had eight years of peace and prosperity with the Clintons....then the Bush debacle came along. I think that she would be a fine president, especially with Bill at her side. Anyone agree? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by North Country on 03/27/14 at 18:13:50 There seem to be quite a few conspiracy theorists on this tall table site. Okay, that’s fun. :D |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by RatdogWillie on 03/27/14 at 18:27:26 70787967696F0A0 wrote:
I hope you aren't holding your breath while waiting for agreement. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by North Country on 03/28/14 at 17:08:30 Whom would you like to see run against her? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/28/14 at 19:19:58 I cant think of anyone I dislike more offhand. She is a globalist & we wont have a prayer with that toad holding the reins., WHOOPEE! Not at war! Okay, thats good,, doesnt quite satisfy my desires as a Libertarian, but, its a step in the right direction. THO, IIRC, we did kill some people,, maybe not a protracted war, per se, but Im pretty sure we killed people.. anyone? |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by pgambr on 03/28/14 at 19:55:09 Quote:
Peace perhaps, the brief prosperity we experienced was a prelude to the final destruction of the middle class. Under the Clinton administration NAFTA was passed which exported millions of jobs overseas. Also, the effective repeal of the Glass-Steagall transpired. This was imposed to regulate or prohibit the combination of commercial and investment banking. There are many other factors involved; although, IMHO these were the most significant pieces of legislation which led to the mortgage crisis and 48 million people on the welfare dolls 5 years later. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by North Country on 03/28/14 at 20:32:58 I agree that NAFTA was a bad deal, but two things. First any Republican would have passed NAFTA in a heartbeat. And two, the ‘profit above all else’ corporations are mostly responsible for shipping jobs overseas. The can pay third-world country workers slave wages without having to provide any benefits whatsoever. |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/28/14 at 21:43:50 Conjecture Any bub woulda signed it Fact \Clinton did Who CARES if a Bub ( controlled by the same globalists as the dems) woulda signed it? It dont make it okay,. both sides are KILLING US, Screw them all |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by Serowbot on 03/28/14 at 23:05:21 A new voice... Good luck, NC... You're not alone,... but you will be outnumbered... :-?... ... and now,...on "Globalism"... Ohhh!.......... bad word!... You fear it, because you've been told to... It's a conspiracy!... Evil!... We should stand, proud, and alone... and isolated...(yep,.. that'll work)... Wait... how about everyone realizing that we live on a globe... and communication, and cooperation, and collaboration, can accomplish, what isolated, head in the sand, thinking can't... There is a world out there... we lead in it,.. but we don't rule it. And we don't own it... It can be "us, against all of them",... or "all of us, against them"... It's a semantic that matters... What I'm saying is,.. you don't lead, with your head in the sand... by being isolated... We aren't alone in feeling special... There are proud, strong, smart, and courageous people in every country... They don't follow us because they are sheep, or because they wish they were us... they will only follow, if they agree with us, and know that we see them as people that are as proud, strong, smart, and courageous as we are... It is so embarrassing that you appear to want your leadership to be a beauty contest... Sarah Palin just farted a petunia... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by raydawg on 03/29/14 at 04:43:06 One world order, under one leader, under one oath to give the people leadership, protection, and stability....... IF...... You do as they command, giving 100% allegiance. IF not...... the globe with have no need for you, expendable. It won't be a D or R thing, it is already decided, makes no different who you vote for. Personally, I can't wait, tho my heart will be heavy for those who fall into the abyss by choice..... |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/29/14 at 06:26:01 No, Row, Ive seen what the globalists want. I know what the goals are. REad the georgia guidestones. look at policies. The globalists have been making the big decisions for decades, Its not gonna be anice world for the masses., |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by shorty on 03/31/14 at 15:47:24 we are spiraling down the fiscal drain pipe unless govt starts trimming fat |
|
Title: Re: Hillary in 2016 Post by pgambr on 03/31/14 at 16:16:16 5B49465B47464D4F280 wrote:
You are correct, but what are they going to trim especially in an election year. Politicians are going to protect jobs in their districts. They won't cut military spending in any meaningful way. They won't cut entitlements. All they can do is print more money in the form of qualitative easing. They are going to have to rein that in some capacity though. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |