HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 63 Next »

yurbud

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 06:58 PM
Number of posts: 37,732

Journal Archives

Do Republicans remember that their scandal machine didn't really hurt Bill Clinton?

Apart from jamming up Congress with all their Whitewater and Blue Dress investigations, Bubba remained popular throughout his presidency.

What do they think they will gain from firing it up again for Hillary as they clearly have done?

Also, I think we forgot their "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks" approach to allegations they used with Clinton since they stuck to so few themes with Obama: Muslim, Socialist, who doesn't kill enough people, and is black.

It would be funny if someone compiled a list of candidates and appointees who lost

or were fired for Trump-like scandals.

Even if it hadn't been challenged, would this new Comey email angle have changed votes?

At the height of Clinton smearing during Bill's impeachment trial, public support for removing him never broke more than a few percentage points outside of the hardcore right.

And Bill's various dalliances were well-known before he was even elected the first time.

Why would the public care about this email business when they didn't care about Bill's dirty laundry, or for that matter, not enough swing voters cared about Bush's WAR CRIMES to keep him from being re-elected?

How much of an effect will this have?

TOON: when righties talk about Hillary's emails, say something like this



FULL SIZED

Instead of the oath of office, if Trump is elected (God forbid) he should have to say:

"In the criminal justice system, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous..."

SIROTA: Clinton financier & potential Treas Sec - pushing plan to shift retirees' savings to Wall St

My vote for Hillary will not be a vote for this.

Can someone please debunk this with Hillary's track record on Social Security.

While Hillary Clinton has spent the presidential campaign saying as little as possible about her ties to Wall Street, the executive who some observers say could be her Treasury Secretary has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings. The executive is Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group.

The investment colossus is most famous in politics for its Republican CEO likening an Obama tax plan to a Nazi invasion. James, though, is a longtime Democrat — and one of Clinton’s top fundraisers. The billionaire sculpted the retirement initiative with a prominent labor economist whose work is supported by another investment mogul who is a big Clinton donor. The proposal has received bipartisan praise from prominent economic thinkers, and James says that Clinton’s top aides are warming to the idea.

It is a plan that proponents say could help millions of Americans — but could also enrich another constituency: the hedge fund and private equity industries that Blackstone dominates and that have donated millions to support Clinton’s presidential bid.

The proposal would require workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll into individual retirement accounts “to be invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers,” as James put it. In other words, individual voluntary 401(k)s would be replaced by a single national system, and much of the mandated savings would flow to Wall Street, where companies like Blackstone could earn big fees off the assets. And because of a gap in federal anti-corruption rules, there would be little to prevent the biggest investment contracts from being awarded to the biggest presidential campaign donors.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-wall-street-financial-industry-may-control-retirement-savings

IRONIC: if it's as easy for Trump to get laid as he says in that tape...

why did he have to go all the way to some impoverished Eastern European country to find two out of three wives?

Maybe unhappy establishment politicians aren't the only ones who want to "dump Trump."

this was already the strangest election ever, worse than 2000. Now it looks we will have only one

credible major party candidate.

Has that ever happened since George Washington?

How would Trump rate the wives, mothers, and daughters of the guys who plan to vote for him?

and would that average Joe want the women in his life to be treated like that?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 63 Next »