If Hillary wins the White House

Actually there are tens of thousands who have access to classified confidential information. Its a handful that have secret and top secret clearance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States

AS to the accusation that she has broken the law, I believe that remains to be seen.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/sep/10/hillary-clintons-emails-classified-or-not/

Constantly delivering a guilty verdict before a charge is even laid, is a well worn political tactic. Accusation page one, retraction page 30.

 

If it wins the whitehouse,God help us all.

 

she will do better than Obama has

 

Yes and an FBI investigation does not always yield a criminal charge. the "IF they committed a crime" in your statement is accurate, its your conclusion that she is guilty that is premature and at this point wholly unsubstantiated by the facts as known by the public.

So those tens of millions of working poor who rely on various social programs to supplement their existence would be better off without access to such supplements?
Tell that to all those kids who get fed thru food stamps.

Apparently in the conservative ideal world, everyone who wants to have a decent paying job can have one. In the real world, the working poor, rarely are able to elevate their incomes thru finding better jobs. There is no doubt that there is a % of recipients who are "leeches" who suck from the gov't teat. The difference in perspective is that conservatives believe that this % represents the majority of recipients while the facts indicated that it is a fairly low %. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a negative.

Apparently the insurance industry is a Ponzi scheme in the eyes of some conservatives. Who knew.

Yes a bad model, which is why every other major industrialized country on the planet has some form of universal healthcare. There is absolutely NO evidence that such systems discourage cost efficiency, and in fact, at least in my country cost efficiency is a core principle. It does not create huge government bureaucracies, as it has been proven by the facts that the costs of single payer are enormously less than in the American for profit system.

As to your outlandish claim that universal healthcare denies coverage to the poor, you are wholly uninformed about such systems.

I should have been more clear. I agree that illegal immigration is a huge problem. However, the solution espoused by some conservatives that the 11 million or 20 million or whatever number it actually is, should all be deported along with their American children, would be enormously destructive to the economy, not to mention unbelievably costly requiring a large bureaucracy to process all those people. All any other nation has to do is refuse them entry due to not having a passport, and voila, the airports and bus terminals of America become "hostels" for hundreds of thousands.

Imagine other countries using an American policy to create even more trouble for America. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see some of the potential hazards and consequences.


Not a well thought out plan, but I can see how it would be popular as a bumpersticker, without consideration of how and how much it would cost to effectuate.

See above.

amazing. Who said anything about Rush Limbaugh. I'm talking about the leadership of the republican party. How soon they forget.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/inside-obamas-presidency/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/

As Obama refusing to work or compromise with republicans, I find it a rather predictable accusation. Projection is used as a cover and its been quite effective on the republican base.

The ACA incorporated hundreds of republican amendments. The debt ceiling debate was not an area of compromise at all, yet the republicans attempted to make it about more than a simple financial housekeeping bill. No president would acquiesce to such demands as playing with the goodwill and credit of the nation is NEVER in its best interest, as was demonstrated.

I guess that "party of no" appellation was ignored or simply dismissed by many, on no other grounds than ideological perspective.

PS. The position of President of the United States is a democratically elected one and his powers are delineated by the constitution and the laws of the land. As to being a socialist, if only the people claiming such had a clue about what socialism is, it would not be bandied about as some fundamental partisan truth.

 

If ANYONE wins, there will be a celebration. Just saying.

 

As long as there are Republican extremist malcontents who belong in another time and another place (I don't know when or where), there will be such goofball grandstanding efforts.

 

Not a major compliment, but one after another that is where the issue lays

 

Yeah, "if". "If" she negligently had classified information on her server (she did), she is guilty of a crime. I think that fact is well known by the public. "If" she deleted information that was under subpoena (she did), she is guilty of a crime. She may have committed quite a few crimes.

What the tens of millions of working poor need to know is that it is democrat policies that is keeping them poor. Self reliance is a good thing and so is upward mobility and a rising standard of living, which for some reason you are unable to acknowledge. Republicans don't think that a majority are "leeches", we think they are people trapped in dependency brought on by liberal policies that are hampering their progress. Anti-business, anti-capitalist intrusive government policies that hamper job growth, and pro-illegal immigration that suppresses wages and floods the market with cheap labor hurts working poor American families. Getting America back to work not only contributes to the betterment of the poor, but would increase revenues and decrease government spending and dependency.

(And by the way, it is not only democrat policies, but the republican leaderships crony capitalist, legal and illegal immigration and trade policies that also hurt American jobs, businesses and wages. The democrats and republicans are reliant upon Wall Street, K Street corporations for their campaign financing and both parties have falling into this corrupt system). Democrats need to admit that their party is a part of the problem, something republican electorate have no problem admitting.

Sorry, although it's called Social Security "Insurance", it is not an industry, and it is not insurance. It's a government redistribution program which often taxes the poor who live shorter lives and pays the rich, who tend to live longer lives.

The Constitution does not require the federal government to pay for healthcare for everyone. If liberals want universal healthcare, they need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, this is something that is reserved to the states in accordance with the 10th Amendment. As far as that goes, the ACA (Obamacare) places a mandatory tax on the poor which I believe is unconstitutional, and only gives them limited medical coverage which most poor people cannot afford (deductibles co-pays), and which many healthcare providers refuse to accept, so they do not benefit from it.

So their native countries will not allow them back into their own countries? That is your argument?

It would be a boom to the economy and it would raise the median wage, without the government forcing business to raise wages. It would reduce the burdens on federal, state, and local governments which have to pay for their welfare, education, roads, infrastructure, incarcerations, police, fire, healthcare ect. while at the same time delivery better service for Americans whom those services are intended for by freeing up teachers and doctors and so on who are supposed to be taking care of our people. Illegal immigrants cost the United States government billions and it would be an immediate savings. Deportation would cost a fraction of what it costs to take care of these people. Most would have to go home at their own expense. Just cut off the welfare, the jobs, the schools and healthcare to them and they will have no reasons or means to stay.

Our responsibility is to our poor. You can't complain in one hand that the poor are not being taken care of, and then overburden society with poor from around the world which impairs our ability to take care of our poor.

That article is so laughable. When did a single one of those RINO republicans ever stand up to Obama on a single issue? Besides, it's not like democrats were happy to cooperate with George W. administration. That is the purpose of opposition parties. They oppose the other party. No need to get butt-hurt because the opposition does not agree with the other sides political philosophies. It'll never happen.

The new definition of compromise for democrats, and Obama especially, is complete and total capitulation by republicans, which they have gotten an awful lot of from soon to be former Speaker Boehner and McConnell. That is precisely the reason Boehner is on the way out, and hopefully we'll get McConnell out as well.

I remember it differently. I remember the GOP pretty much locked out of the process during the writing of the ACA, and then I remember the fact that it was passed without a single vote from a single republican lawmaker. That is what I remember.

As far as the debt ceiling debates, I don't think that any other president (republican or democrat) has ever gotten a "clean bill" as Obama always demands. This is just yet another example of Obama's complete unwillingness to compromise in the least.

P.S. The president has used executive orders and other means to create laws and regulations which are extra-Constitutional, such as executive amnesty. He is a dictator and a socialist without a doubt. Congress would have impeached him in his first term but for his race.

 

Apparently what is "well known" by the public seems to nothing but unsubstantiated accusations. Guiliani's crap about bribery etc., trying to link the Foundation as motivation for her actions never went anywhere, despite the Benghazi investigation "whitewatering" this accusation with its "grilling" of Blumenthal.

Get back to me when there is actually something concrete and criminal. You know based on the results of a thorough criminal investigation, not on the opinions of talking heads especially those that are not in command of all the evidence and facts.

You raise an interesting perspective. Upward mobility is of course a fantastic attribute of America. Its also a bit of a myth. It seems the vast majority of Americans overestimate the reality.



I see you universally condemn the American political and economic system and the status quo, merely suggesting that the republican base recognizes that it is seriously flawed, but the democrats don't. Might want to take a look at the fate of wall street regulations put forth by the democrats AFTER its massive deregulation under republicans.

Its INSURANCE. It works in the identical fashion as INSURANCE. It is a collective risk pool.
Pay your car insurance and never have an accident - seems you think those people are unfairly treated or unlucky.

Yes the poor live on average shorter lives, but exactly how significant do you actually think that is within the whole program? . The longevity gap between genders is worse in many cases.

At no time did I claim it was a constitutional requirement. the fact that it makes economic, social and common sense is more to the point.
I guess that whole "subsidy" thing is merely a mirage.

No, I am suggesting that the notion of deportation on such a massive scale is a bureaucratic and economic nightmare and not at all as simple as the bumpersticker crowd would believe.

I am suggesting that given such a program, it would be incredibly easy for other countries to give the US a painful black eye in the international community. the risks of being hoist by your own petard are enormous, given the fact that there's a lot of nations out there that would be itching to help that condition along.

Do you have any facts to back this position up? Exactly how much does illegal immigration cost governments, and how much of those costs are offset by the total taxes the 8 million or so illegal workers pay?

Except the republicans aren't demonstrating that responsibility very clearly. At least some of their attitudes appear to be counter intuitive when all the facts are on the table.

Yes, I can see how you would find the truth laughable. As to standing up to Obama? I guess all those filibusters in the senate are forgotten. I guess defeat of some pretty major pieces of legislation are also forgotten. As for co-operating with a sitting president, I have already pointed out that wasn't the plan and that is simply a fact. Your dismissal of facts is noted.

then you misremember or at least only remember the partisan propaganda.

http://www.americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/

Up until the Obama administration, the debt ceiling legislation was routine house keeping. often a single paragraph, with NO strings attached. Of course holding the good faith and credit of the nation ransom for partisan political purposes was usually frowned upon by patriotic americans. Seems that attitude has changed rather dramatically, from the guys who want to make America great again.

 

We already know she engaged in gross violations of government policy and the direct orders of the President, that alone should disqualify her from holding high office again, We await whether it rose to criminality although the fact that she harbored and transported classified information leads one to that conclusion.

No they would be better working and not being poor, working at higher paying jobs if their financial needs dictate a higher income. Wouldn't you agree?

Well pretty much that was the case after welfare reform in the late 90's and during the 52 months of full employment after the 2001 recession when the ranks of the poor dropped dramatically as everyone was working. Everytime we increase welfare benefits and expand coverage guess what you get, more poor.

Apparently not, who would have ever thought so?

A fact not proven as more and more of these socialized systems have to revert back to more and more free market policies in order to survive and provide adequate coverage's for the most people.

Well it seems they are the first ones to be denied health care as the rich can go out and purchase it on their own.

No it wouldn't because it would not be an overnight process with many self-deporting. And it seems to be the sentiment of your country, perhaps you should worry more about your own illegal immigrant problems than try to tell us what we should do here which is none of your business to begin with.

Canadians want illegal immigrants deported: poll
·

OTTAWA -- A majority of Canadians believe immigrants who are in the country illegally or after their visas expire should be deported, even if they have family ties in the country, a newly released government poll shows.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=f86690ed-a2ed-447c-8be8-21ba5a3dd922

And you government is responding

Government committed to deporting illegal immigrants, Day vows
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/government-committed-to-deporting-illegal-immigrants-day-vows-1.712149

Imagine other countries using an American policy to create even more trouble for America. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see some of the potential hazards and consequences.

What was that he said to Paul Ryan when he invited the Republicans to come and discuss a new health care plan" 'shut up I won the election not you'

Part of controlling your debt is controlling your spending. As proved over and over just passing debt ceiling limits does nothing more than give the left and the Democrats a green light to speed towards the new one.

To claim that any debt ceiling bill must be a clean bill without provisions to slow the increases at all is utter folly.

And your ignorance of my country once again trips you up, the President is NOT democratically elected. There is no provision for him to be voted on by the People and the People have no right to vote for the President. The STATES elect the President through the Electoral College.

 

Wait, the fact that the IG and several federal agencies have admitted that Hillary Clinton had classified information on her emails is now an "unsubstantiated accusation"? What about the Foundation and it's acceptance of millions of dollars from foreign contributors who were doing business with Hillary Clinton at the Department of State, do you not see a conflict of interest? Do you not see political corruption and malfeasance when Clinton works deals with Russians that are not in the national security interests of the US while taking money from the same Russian companies that are profiting? Do you see nothing wrong with taking money from Muslim countries with terrible human rights and women's rights records while claiming to be a champion of women's rights? Do you see nothing wrong with her lining her own pockets by doing business with people and countries that are giving her husband big fat speaking fees?

Done.

That graphic and it's premise is a total mischaracterization of the point, which is raising the standard of living and the median wages for all Americans. Is it or is it not ideal to raise the standard of living for all?

The cause of the economic crisis if that is what you are referring to was not massive deregulation but laws and regulations that interfered with business in an attempt to create social justice (socialist) policies that benefited people who could not afford housing. The massive number of foreclosures did not help them in the end.

Private insurance premiums are invested back into the economy much the way banks use deposits to loan money for profit. Government simply takes the money in and after taking some out to pay for the bureaucracy pays the money out.

Right, and I am saying that it is unconstitutional, because the Constitution doesn't allow for it. We have 50 state governments who have the responsibility to regulate it as the people of those states see fit. That is how our system of republican government is supposed to work.

Yes, the whole "subsidy" thing is indeed a mirage, as most poor people cannot pay the deductibles. If you can't pay the deductibles, how is the government to reimburse you for payments you didn't make?

And I would suggest that unless and until we have the fortitude to put an end to it, it will continue unabated. We have to stop it at some point, giving amnesty first didn't work in 1986, and only made the problem worse by encouraging more illegal immigration.

Bring it.

I don't know, should I provide information and links that will only be dismissed as partisan disinformation or propaganda when that information is readily available on Google? Sorry, I'll pass. I've too often been given homework assignments by posters who don't even bother to read or take the information seriously.

I will say that you are assuming that those illegal workers are being paid above the table. I'm sure that many of them standing in front of Costco aren't paying Social Security or getting W-2 for all that construction and landscaping work. One of the benefits for businesses and individuals for hiring day laborers and illegals is the avoidance of paying the matching taxes and costs associated with hiring someone on the books legally. A cost I might add, that is not figured into assessments of how much it costs the government (lost revenues).

So perhaps the messaging is not clear or perhaps the liberal media assault on conservatism or a combination of that are at fault. Nevertheless, the fake notion that democrats are for the poor is only true in that they like to have more poor people because if people were more self-sufficient they would not need democrats to pander to them or take care of them.

McConnell hasn't led one filibuster. Yeah, like amnesty. That is because the people are against amnesty. As for cooperating with a sitting president, I have already pointed out that it is never the plan with any opposition party. Your dismissal of reality is noted.

How many pages of the 2,700 pages or the accompanying 20,000 pages of regulations make up the 161 republican amendments? How many republicans supported the law? Zero. How many republicans who got amendment through voted for the law? Zero. An Amendment is nothing. It could be something as small as changing a single word, and sometimes, it could be a deletion of a sentence or a paragraph. Your fact check fails miserably only because so what if democrats passed provisions that both sides agreed upon? Would you expect them not to pass them because republicans agreed? Also, I would give it four Pinocchios because even some of the people or groups they mention actually were against the law, not for it - namely Heritage Foundation, Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley.

That is just factually not true, I don't know where you get that information (disinformation), but the debt ceiling has always been debated and had amendments attached to it in the past. This talk of having "clean bills" is relatively new and basically what I said earlier, a means of getting the republicans to capitulate on everything.

Oh geez, for cripes sake, I have a foreigner accusing Americans of being unpatriotic. Give me a break. Regular order in the House and the Senate is not unpatriotic, and it is not akin to holding the nation hostage. This is how the American system of government works, and it is how we like it. I don't think foreigners need to be lecturing us on how to be American. It is something so completely foreign to them it is no wonder they don't understand our system. It's the American way, and frankly, I'm tired of hearing foreigners put down the United States of America!

Where do you find these ridiculous talking points?

 

What we learned from Hillary's testimony: 1. The government tried to cover up what really happened for political reasons. 2. 2. She lied. She is a smug person that laughs at rather than answers questions want answers to. 3. The most important and factual interview was on fox when the host questioned 3 members of service that were actually there, fighting the enemy. It might do you good to listen to what these HEROS had to say.