when will Hilary go down in flames?
 

i think she wins the nom but loses the general to Jeb. She will get hammered in the debates.

she won't even get the nomination.

she will be the next president. the first female

Politics is so funny. Anyone who doesn't think Hilary is going to be the Democratic nominee is just ridiculous.

Yeah, she'll go down in flames over some imagined issue like Benghazi or donations from other countries or emails.... whatever.

I mean, I wouldn't vote for Hillary if you paid me, but come on... Be realistic.

Or...OR.... she wins the nom, wins the election, and then for the next EIGHT years does about as well/poorly as any other shmuck who runs against her or held the hotseat in the past.

Of course, no soothsayer am I.

why not answer the poll instead of trying to mock my informed, educated, up to date and valid opinion.

you might want to try to same prior to exclaiming others need to be realistic.

kinda like hillary was the guaranteed shoe-in nom in 2008, right mr. realistic?

rochard telling other to be realistic! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

here's some reality

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the forthcoming book rocking Washington right now is the number of stunning facts liberal media outlets have already confirmed and verified are accurate.

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary?s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt?s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton?s State Dept.?a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by ?a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin? at the time of the Uranium One deal.

?Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?? asks the liberal publication.

CONFIRMED: Hillary?s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare ?Gold Exploitation Permit? in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

The Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash?s revelation that Hillary Clinton?s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative ?gold exploitation permit? in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.

According to the Post, Rodham?s mining company ?won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,? just as Clinton Cash reveals.

CONFIRMED: Hillary?s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary?s State Dept.?a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The Wall Street Journal confirms the book?s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.

?About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation?s prime minister to allow ?open pit mining,? including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,? reports the Journal.

CONFIRMED: Hillary?s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

The New York Times confirms, ?The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.?

The Times also verifies the book?s reporting that Hillary?s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary?s State Dept.

Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by ?Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,? a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.

Bloomberg?s examination confirms that ?in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.?

The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.

CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns

Reuters has confirmed that ?Hillary Clinton?s family?s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns? as ?the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.?

CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons? Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post?s independent analysis, ?Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.?

Of that, reports the Post, ?Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.?

CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush?s Financial Dealings

CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush?s financial records and relationships.

?The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender?s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida?s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush?s private equity funds,? reports CBS News.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary?s State Dept.

ABC News has confirmed Clinton Cash?s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton?s desk.

?Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,? reported ABC News.

ABC News noted it found ?an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,? but that Clinton Cash?s essential ?premise? is ?supported by records? ABC News independently analyzed.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton?s Home in Chappaqua, New York

New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons? home.

?When I first contacted both the Clinton Foundation?Mr. Clinton?s spokesman?and Mr. Giustra, they denied any such meeting ever took place,? said Becker.

?And then when we told them, ?Well we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom, who not only told us all about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill at the home in Chappaqua, and that he proudly displayed it on his office wall.? They then acknowledged that yes, the meeting had taken place.?

The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to struggle in its efforts to spin and distract from the growing pile of Clinton Cash facts mainstream media outlets have already confirmed and verified are correct.

As Politico concludes, ?Hillary?s Clinton Cash dismissal is dead in the water.?

That's what everybody thought the last time she ran, so anything can happen.

Remember the big deal when delegates had committed early to vote for Hillary but backed
out because Obama won their district?

Did you accuse someone else of having an agenda???

:helpme


http://zlina.org/test/DID%20NOT%20READ.gif

yes, i let you know your race baiting agenda is transparent.


unlike you, i'm not trying to gotcha people as racists. But when someone like rochard tells me i need to be realistic? I'm going to support my opinion and that's what i did here.


i see you're just like rochard and can't state your own view without treading on other's.

i think she will flub the debates. when has she ever debated anyone in her life? oh yeah, when she debated obama. that went well.

:2 cents:

Here's what will happen...

A corporate-owned President will be elected in 2016.

This POTUS will 1) Continue to kiss Israel's ass, no matter what. 2) Continue to kiss Big Oil's ass, no matter what. 3) Continue allowing Wall Street and Big Banks to run the show, no matter what. 4) Prioritize War Machine Funding over helping America get back on its feet.

So really, who gives a flying fuck?!

If our government was really run BY THE PEOPLE - FOR THE PEOPLE I am certain 325 MILLION citizens would not have their choices reduced to that of another Bush vs another Clinton.

This is America Today...

Why So Many Americans Feel So PowerlessÂha|ÂhaRobert Reich

Shy of another American Revolution, we are simply in a race to the bottom, regardless of who we pretend is in charge.

Your head is in your ass.

Like you do? Constantly? You think everyone else is uninformed and go out of your way to insult them. You should stop.


That was then, this is now. And lets face it, Obama was a very very likeable candidate.

I don't always agree with what Sir Rochard has to say but he's a lot better informed and a lot more polite than you.

ZZZZzzzzzzzz


D you hate Obama just because he's black?


Maybe.... I think it depends on who she goes up against. If she goes up against Ted Cruz, she will do well if she sticks to the facts, but she may flub if Cruz gets under her skin. The guy is a total tool, but he's an really good speaker that seems to believe what he says.

If she goes up against Chris Christie, she would probably win if she keeps calm. I'm guessing that it would be really easy to get Christie pissed off. If he yells, he'll come off as a bully and automatically lose.

If she goes up against Jeb Bush, she will probably lose. I don't want to see another Bush in the White House but Jeb is the GOP's best bet.

If she goes up against any of the others, its probably anyones guess. I'm guessing, or hoping, that she would win .

You only gave three options, none of which are valid.

I didn't believe Hillary was a shoe-in nomination in 2008. A lot has changed since then, including her being a Senator and then Secretary of State.

Last time I looked the polls - which was some time ago - Hillary had some 68% of the Democratic vote. I believe that was before Hillary was running. The top for or five Republicans combined couldn't gather that kind of support.

Unless something spectacular happens, Hillary is going to be the nomination for the Democratic party.

But isn't this guy writing another book about Jeb Bush or Walker?

I am not defending Hillary; I never said she was the right choice. From the stats I see Hilary is going to be the nomination.

You bring up a valid point - her debating skills. Does she have none, or does she have forty years worth? I am sure she debated on a small scale when she ran for senator, but also.... And she's since stood toe to toe with a number of world leaders as Sec of State. But she also most likely has taken part in every debate her husband was ever involved in.

Unlike most people, I do not make up my mind until after the debates. I don't vote "party line".

She was a Senator before then and during the election in 2008. Active from 2001-2009.

Her issue is always the same, she doesn't campaign very well at all. Her strength is get in the weeds and just do the job as a wonk. Her negatives are her lack of being able to communicate in a way that inspires or seems trustworthy and believable. You add in the issues with the email server, with the Clinton Cash probe that is just starting up, and yes, even with Benghazi, and she is in for a very very tough fight. Lucky for her this time, there appears no other Democrat beside O'Malley that wants to take a shot at her for the primary.

do you guys really give a shit which puppet is next?

It doesn't matter what you say about Hillary or what the republicans throw at her during this election. People are getting burnt out on all the drama, they want the government fixed. The GOP will hammer each other to get the parties vote. Hillary doesn't have to go thru that. If she keeps to a message and a plan. She's had 8 years since the last time she came up with a message and a plan.

Hillary will win the democratic nomination. The general election will very close. I don't know if she will win or not, but all of the stuff that is coming up now will likely have very little actual effect on the election.

To me the election will come down to who can better connect with young voters (those under 29) and minority voters (especially Hispanic voters). The republicans got their asses handed to them in those two areas in the last two elections. If they don't improve they won't win. If they can improve in those areas it is anyone's game.

the repubs always nominate the most electable of their herd, so my money is on jeb, who will def look more presidential between them.

its the party behind the puppet whose most important, so yeah. it can swing the supreme court. & whether pot stays legal in states.

still waiting to read your point...that she's going to win?

all hilary did as sec state was visit a bunch of friendly countries & take foundation money for favors from the white house.

:upsidedow

Jeb se habla la espanol. hilary no comprende. :)

no, i only insult people that come after me, like you just did here.

everyone's entitled to their fucking opinions, even me, you myopic dimwitted hillitard.

you just do what you're told by leftard blogs. keep your head in the tar sands.

let's all not forget, ********** is the canadian that thinks Americans should not educate and inform themselves of the candidates running in 2016.

That is the main reason I think Jeb is her biggest threat. G.W. Bush won a good amount of the Hispanic vote. He spoke Spanish, gave speeches in Spanish and had a lot of Hispanic people working for him when he was Governor of Texas. Jeb is also married to a Mexican woman. He could potentially get a nice chunk of those voters. The problem he might have is on immigration. If he is for immigration reform that will help people become citizens his base might then abandon him. If he is strongly against that type of immigration reform and Hillary is for it, she could pull those voters.

i don't care what you thought in 2008, you dropped in here and claimed "anybody who doesn't think HIllary will get the nomination is ridiculous".

i cleared that up.

He is 100% on the record many, many times this year for full fledged amnesty, as an "act of love". He's already lost the base. He only has the RINO part of the party.

I didn't know that. I don't know a whole lot about him. Without the support of the base all the money raised in the world won't help him win the nomination.

Stellar post right on target

Jeb was a horrible governor for the state of Florida and will be off the equally horrible president

:1orglaugh:thumbsup

The great thing about this thread is it will be here in Dec 2016 just like all the bitcoin threads - we'll get to see who is correct and who is an ass-talking blowhard.

If they would be smart, they would nominate him directly. Before he has to bow down to the tea baggers and loses the moderate voters.

I detest Hillary as the most machavellian, corrupt and ruthlessly self dedicated politician of the lot.... But meanwhile, I predict that she will win, simply because sheeple will vote for her "just to see a woman as president" and that anyone who opposes her will be deemed a "sexist misogynistic pig who is just a lapdog of the male hegemony and afraid of women holding power".





Just my 2 cents.





.

The great thing about this thread is it is here in April 2015, just like all the bitcoin threads - we get to see who has the nutsack to make a prediction and who the ass-talking blowhard is who doesnt.

A top Democratic moneyman recruited by Hillary Rodham Clinton?s presidential campaign has put fundraising activities on hold, saying he can?t do it with a clear conscience because the former secretary of state has too many unanswered questions swirling around her.

New York businessman Jon Cooper, who Team Clinton enlisted for its elite corps of early fundraisers known as ?HillStarters,? said that he decided not to tap his donor network for Mrs. Clinton because she hasn?t provided enough answers about foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation while she ran the State Department, her exclusive use of private email for official business as America?s top diplomat and her commitment to liberal priorities.



Read more: Hillary Clinton foreign donations, email, agenda questions scare off top fundraiser - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://commentphotos.com/gallery/Com...1405456691.jpg

but remember that this bullshit fails from time to time:

It's not the Tea Party that they have to bow down to. All that the people in the Tea Party movement want is smaller govt. and less taxes.

It's the "Religious Right" that fucks them up every time.
All the media has to do is start asking them questions about abortion, birth control, etc. and they are forced to say stupid shit to keep the Religious Right happy.

The media and politicians give the Tea Party a bad rap because their basic idea would REDUCE the power of govt.
And they don't want that.

You can't be a blowhard by NOT talking. Learn your words. You already know, if you pay attention to anything you write, which you should, since no one else does, that I believe Hillary will win in a close contest.

I don't write it 50 times in 50 different threads because it makes one look like a total tool to do so.

i'm pretty sure this is talking.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

and i'm certainly sure this is an ass-talking blowhard talking.

if you're going to use my phrase - give me credit (tm)

She probably won't.

For as shitty as she is, the GOP will be unable to offer up anyone better.

This is their chance. They'll probably still blow it.

This election is important. The next president may end up filling a few SCOTUS seats.

Yeah, that's IN now right?

Obama and Romney were choirboys compared to Clinton and Bush when it comes to baggage involving bought and paid for political influence - Obama was a nobody lawyer/junior senator and Romney,all they could pin on him was Bain Capital but Bain did nothing illegal at all, immoral maybe but that's subjective. The Clintons and Bushes break laws.

I honestly do not remember how she campaigned against Obama. I have never been fond of Hillary, and never paid too much attention to her. I also tend not to pick candidates until we have the final candidates; I don't vote Republican or Democratic and I will not choose a candidate before they have won the nomination. I do not pick a candidate based on what "my party" tells me to pick - that is just nonsense.

As for the "issues", I do not believe they are issues at all. The email thing is silly (this is a common practice at the higher levels of government, and there is no proof of any wrong doing), and I haven't given too much thought to this so called "cash scandal" (We can already see the clear connection from the Bush family to the Bin Laden family). Benghazi is nothing more than childish. There have been multiple investigations saying Hillary was not at fault. The one investigation that says "it could have been prevented" does not point a finger towards Hilary, but instead points a finger at Congress who failed to approve additional funds for more security at embassies.

I am not saying that Hillary is going to be our next president. But saying that she won't get the nomination is bad guess.

You didn't clear anything up. Hilary still has 60% of the Democratic vote. It's pretty clear she's the top runner.

Meanwhile in the Republican party, Jeb Bush has... 13% of the vote? The top four Republicans combined do not have that support that Hillary has.

Here is the current Republican percentages:
Bush 15%
Walker 12%
Rubio 11%
Paul 9%

Hilary is the clear front runner for the Democratic party, while nothing is clear with the Republican party.

Not to raise ire with my new bro dynamo, but this did happen:

Today from NBC News, not a noted source of evil republican propaganda:

>>What's more, Clinton's popularity hasn't changed among Democrats, who will choose their party's presidential nominee before the general election begins.

Among Democratic primary voters, Clinton's fav/unfav score is 81 percent positive, 6 percent negative - almost identical to March's 82 percent-4 percent rating.

"All of that information [about Clinton] made no fundamental difference to Democratic primary voters,"<<

As long as it's not a republican I could give a shit.