• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Yet another democrat campaign finance scandal brewing...

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
A lot of people would like to return to the Bill Clinton 90s.

The problem is that Bill isn't running, Hillary is. That changes the entire equation. People still like Bill a lot. Hillary? Not so much.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If Clinton was so popular then why did Al Gore lose?

We had a good economy, a surplus and no terrorism and yet Al Gore still lost. Al couldn?t even win his own home state.

I believe a lot of commentators at the time blamed scandal fatigue. This is why Al Gore never really used Clinton to campaign for him either.

Bush isn?t running for office in 2008 so the Democrats can try to paint the Republican running as being scandal plagues, but I don?t think that charge will stick. Clinton IS running and with all her flip-flops, socialistic ideal AND this campaign finance scandal people are going to think long and hard before voting for her.
Click to expand...

People get bored of a good thing. Now people have 8 years of Bush to compare the Clinton years to. You want to bring up Clinton scandals and make 2008 a referendum on Bill Clinton, I can only encourage you.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If Clinton was so popular then why did Al Gore lose?

We had a good economy, a surplus and no terrorism and yet Al Gore still lost. Al couldn?t even win his own home state.

I believe a lot of commentators at the time blamed scandal fatigue. This is why Al Gore never really used Clinton to campaign for him either.

Bush isn?t running for office in 2008 so the Democrats can try to paint the Republican running as being scandal plagues, but I don?t think that charge will stick. Clinton IS running and with all her flip-flops, socialistic ideal AND this campaign finance scandal people are going to think long and hard before voting for her.
Click to expand...
People get bored of a good thing. Now people have 8 years of Bush to compare the Clinton years to. You want to bring up Clinton scandals and make 2008 a referendum on Bill Clinton, I can only encourage you.
Click to expand...
umm yea... which explain why Bush 41 won after 8 years of Reagan. Guess people weren't bored in 1988 huh?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If Clinton was so popular then why did Al Gore lose?

We had a good economy, a surplus and no terrorism and yet Al Gore still lost. Al couldn?t even win his own home state.

I believe a lot of commentators at the time blamed scandal fatigue. This is why Al Gore never really used Clinton to campaign for him either.

Bush isn?t running for office in 2008 so the Democrats can try to paint the Republican running as being scandal plagues, but I don?t think that charge will stick. Clinton IS running and with all her flip-flops, socialistic ideal AND this campaign finance scandal people are going to think long and hard before voting for her.
Click to expand...
People get bored of a good thing. Now people have 8 years of Bush to compare the Clinton years to. You want to bring up Clinton scandals and make 2008 a referendum on Bill Clinton, I can only encourage you.
Click to expand...
umm yea... which explain why Bush 41 won after 8 years of Reagan. Guess people weren't bored in 1988 huh?
Click to expand...

Like I said, go right ahead. You should talk about Bill Clinton the whole 2008 season.
We'll be talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. 😀
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If Clinton was so popular then why did Al Gore lose?

We had a good economy, a surplus and no terrorism and yet Al Gore still lost. Al couldn?t even win his own home state.

I believe a lot of commentators at the time blamed scandal fatigue. This is why Al Gore never really used Clinton to campaign for him either.

Bush isn?t running for office in 2008 so the Democrats can try to paint the Republican running as being scandal plagues, but I don?t think that charge will stick. Clinton IS running and with all her flip-flops, socialistic ideal AND this campaign finance scandal people are going to think long and hard before voting for her.
Click to expand...
People get bored of a good thing. Now people have 8 years of Bush to compare the Clinton years to. You want to bring up Clinton scandals and make 2008 a referendum on Bill Clinton, I can only encourage you.
Click to expand...
umm yea... which explain why Bush 41 won after 8 years of Reagan. Guess people weren't bored in 1988 huh?
Click to expand...

Dukakis.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Like I said, go right ahead. You should talk about Bill Clinton the whole 2008 season.
We'll be talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. 😀
Click to expand...
You do that, but remember where Hillary stands on Iraq?

The difference between her and any Republican is not that much.
If the Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate you might have a point, but Hillary voted for the war, supported the war before and after it started, and is on record saying we will have troops in Iraq for years.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Like I said, go right ahead. You should talk about Bill Clinton the whole 2008 season.
We'll be talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. 😀
Click to expand...
You do that, but remember where Hillary stands on Iraq?

The difference between her and any Republican is not that much.
If the Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate you might have a point, but Hillary voted for the war, supported the war before and after it started, and is on record saying we will have troops in Iraq for years.
Click to expand...
Only an issue in the primary.
People against this war will not be voting Republican anyways. Hillary can stake out a "moderate" position on Iraq because she has the nomination stitched. Republicans on the other hand are sticking with their same old Iraq rhetoric, we fight them there or they fight us here, which is fine by me. We will talk about Iraq in the morning, day, and night. You can talk about Clenis, Hsu, scandals, etc. Clinton got elected twice during the whole Whitewater scandals, and all that nonsense. Plus GOP lost seats in 98 right after impeaching Clinton. So I'll take Clinton scandals, real or imaginary over Iraq in any election.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Like I said, go right ahead. You should talk about Bill Clinton the whole 2008 season.
We'll be talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. 😀
Click to expand...
You do that, but remember where Hillary stands on Iraq?

The difference between her and any Republican is not that much.

If the Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate you might have a point, but Hillary voted for the war, supported the war before and after it started, and is on record saying we will have troops in Iraq for years.
Click to expand...

Why is this guy still allowed to post drivel like this while I get slammed???
 
The point is that the republicans spin things, the democrats spin things, and in the end the spin does not matter and all the spinners manage to do is fool themselves. Because in the end results matter. Be it public policy that may or may not have imploded or scandals that get or don't get their targets.

In the case of Iran Contra, GHB escaped that by claiming not to be in the loop and got killed by being the sucker who had to raise taxes because continuing the Reagan policy of unrestricted borrowing was no longer tenable.

And now GWB got in by promising a continuation of sane fiscal policy and instead is repeating the Regan policy of putting it all on public debt. And to add to woes, got us stuck in Iraq, lost us all international respect, and the democrats are scoring very well and making many of their charges stick unlike the Clinton BJ and Whitewater which were total result fizzles. And everyone privately admits if the smoking guns of GWB&co are ever found, its gonna look really really bad for GWB because he WILL get jail time.

In short, spin may matter short term, but in the end the spin has got to live up to its billing or its just more hot air. Results matter and spin does not. The American people flat out lose respect for braggerts.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: senseamp
Like I said, go right ahead. You should talk about Bill Clinton the whole 2008 season.
We'll be talking about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and more Iraq. 😀
Click to expand...
You do that, but remember where Hillary stands on Iraq?

The difference between her and any Republican is not that much.

If the Democrats nominate an anti-war candidate you might have a point, but Hillary voted for the war, supported the war before and after it started, and is on record saying we will have troops in Iraq for years.
Click to expand...

Why is this guy still allowed to post drivel like this while I get slammed???
Click to expand...

Because what he said up above is true, and what you post is crap like moronic alternative explanations for the Oklahoma city bombings?
 
Well if we want to talk the political spin on Hillary, yes she voted for the Iraq war. But she was fooled into it by GWB who was supposed to sue war as only a last resort, and how is it her fault by saying we need to stay and fix the bungles of GWB or even worse things happen?

And for that matter as you look at the entire bi-partisan field for 08, only Obama and Kucinich can claim to be against the Iraq war although I don't know the Ron Paul initial vote.

So Hillary is hardly the lone ranger and the initial war vote may not be all that valid of a litmus test.

But on the bright side Hillary can be spun and counter spun just like anyone else.
 
yes she voted for the Iraq war. But she was fooled into it by GWB
Click to expand...

THAT'S A COMPLETE LIE

by her OWN ADMISSION she never read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before she voted to authorize President Bush to use force in 2002.

So it's IMPOSSIBLE that GWB "mislead her" because she never read the purportedly "misleading" reasons for vote! She was voting what the polls told her to do!!!


GOTCHA

she wasn't mislead by anyone (except possibly her own staff, which makes her an incompetent leader), she was to lazy to read the report herself, and to craven to do anything but vote the way her polling data told her to. Bush had nothing to do with HER vote.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But she was fooled into it by GWB
Click to expand...

Cut the crap, Lemon. This is by far the most pathetic and weak argument you've presented in quite some time.

No one was "fooled" in to anything, the least of which Hillary.
 
To heartsurgeon,

The NIE you refer to was hardly new nor were the intel allegations. And thats why senator's have staff's to tell them whats changed without the bother of re reading the same old somewhat dubious stuff for the tenth time. The deception I refer to is that GWB would use war as only a last option and I think any unbiased read of events is that GWB used war as a first option. And incidentally the same argument John Kerry tried to make on I voted for it before I voted against it but by then it was too late because the pooch was already screwed.

The point is that the congress did not want to micromanage or hobble the President in the upcoming negotiations and such resolutions are almost a congressional custom. Normally its a safe bet because normal Presidents can be trusted not to abuse that trust and act in sane ways. For Hillary it was more personal because her husband Bill had a stronger hand in negotiations with that congressional backing in hand.

And my GOTCHA is that the collective congress got fooled and you, me, and every other man, woman, and child in this country will be paying for that GWB&co. abuse of trust
regarding Iraq for decades to come.

On a brighter side, far fewer people will ever trust the little boy who cried wolf ever again.
I do note there are still some Earl Landgrebe gullible types left but those are getting fewer by the day. When are finally going to wise up Pabster and heartsurgeon?
 
I think any unbiased read of events is that GWB used war as a first option.
Click to expand...

Your revisionist view of history would make Joe Stalin proud of you.

Lets see, how many U.N. votes, resolutions, statements, warnings.....

"unbias?" you probably mean the Washington Post, New York Times, or LA Times....right?

The congress wrote the war resolution (they are responsible for the wording)
the congress passed the war resolution (they are responsible for it's passage)

that's what the congress does, write laws, and vote on laws.

if they wrote the bill, and passed the bill, it seems like they would own the bill........

if they didn't read the intel reports..they're lazy or stupid or both (or in Hillary's case, craven)
if they didn't explicitly put limits on the bill, then they are crappy at writing bills,

in any event, Hillary owns the bill. and if you persist in claiming Bush & co. "fooled" her, than "the smartest woman in the world" was seriously "fooled" by a man (at least the second time this has happened to her, in a big way...), and this should call into question her judgement and intelligence.

such resolutions are almost a congressional custom
Click to expand...

yep, authorizations for war are commonplace in the Senate..happens all the time...commonplace....don't want to "hobble" the President...


bother of re reading the same old somewhat dubious stuff for the tenth time.
Click to expand...
10th time??? WTF, she NEVER read it, and if was so patently "dubious" why vote for the war resolution?????

the congress did not want to micromanage or hobble the President
Click to expand...
Sheesh, that's ALL congress wants to do...

Normally its a safe bet because normal Presidents can be trusted not to abuse that trust and act in sane ways.
Click to expand...
HAHAHAHAHA you made me laugh....blow jobs in the White House..."sane" behavior???? Blow jobs while on the phone with diplomats and congressmen...sane behavior....perjury, suborning perjury...sane behavior????

pathetic excuses

 
i want to know where and when she "returns" the money....now the story changes from "donate to charity" to "return"...

if she returns the money, can the donator's re-donate the same cash?

i cannot believe she will actually give up control of close to 1 million bucks...
 
I think you'd best let this thread die. The story gets no support or comment from any Republican candidate because they all know they could be next, and it wouldn't be their fault either. Thousands of donors, any one of whom could be an embezzeler or worse. You guys picking on Hill for this are gonna have a nice time explaining why it was ok for your star candidate to accept donations from child molesters or something.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
A lot of people would like to return to the Bill Clinton 90s.

The problem is that Bill isn't running, Hillary is. That changes the entire equation. People still like Bill a lot. Hillary? Not so much.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100%. But those are some awful big coat tails she is riding in on, I would never underestimate the impact he could have on her electability.
 
This story doesn't need support from Republican candidates. It has a life of its own and just keeps getting worser and worser for Hillary and her partner in crime, Mr. Hsu.

http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...ry?coll=la-home-center

WASHINGTON ? The FBI has begun examining a murky business venture run by disgraced Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu that paid out hefty profits over the last several years to investors, some of whom were pressed to make contributions to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other political candidates.

Sources told The Times on Sunday that a number of participants and their associates in Southern California and elsewhere had been in contact with the FBI about an investment pool operated by Hsu.

...
Click to expand...
Can't wait for the juiciness that will surely follow.
 
Down, down, down the rabbit hole:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...ory?ctrack=1&cset=true

Before the announcement, new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman's concerns were unwarranted.

"I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states."He is COMPLETELY legit."
Click to expand...

So it looks like the Clinton campaign was warned a while back that Hsu was a scammer and they not only ignored the warning, they were positive he was "completely legit." I wonder, how did they come to that conclusion?
 
Strain at a gnat, swallow an elephant. Where was the righteous indignation at the "questionable" Republican campaign contributions?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Down, down, down the rabbit hole:

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...ory?ctrack=1&cset=true

Before the announcement, new evidence surfaced that the Clinton camp had dismissed allegations about Hsu made by a Southern California businessman. In an e-mail obtained by The Times, a Clinton campaign staffer told a California Democratic Party official in June that the businessman's concerns were unwarranted.

"I can tell you with 100 certainty that Norman Hsu is NOT involved in a ponzi scheme," wrote Samantha Wolf, who was a campaign finance director for the Western states."He is COMPLETELY legit."
Click to expand...

So it looks like the Clinton campaign was warned a while back that Hsu was a scammer and they not only ignored the warning, they were positive he was "completely legit." I wonder, how did they come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

They called him up and asked?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top