The Clinton’s are all about the money. Their words have no creditability.
Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors
By Jonathan Allen - NEW YORK Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:15pm EDThttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-donations-idUSKBN0MF2FQ20150319
Clinton charity failed to disclose donors, as pledged
(Reuters) - In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family's globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.
At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity's flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.
In response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons' charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.
The finding could renew scrutiny of Clinton's promises of transparency as she prepares to launch her widely expected bid for the White House in the coming weeks. Political opponents and transparency groups have criticized her in recent weeks for her decision first to use a private email address while she was secretary of state and then to delete thousands of emails she labeled private.CHAI, which is best known for helping to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in the developing world, published a partial donor list for the first time only this year.
CHAI should have published the names during 2010-2013, when Clinton was in office, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley acknowledged this week. "Not doing so was an oversight which we made up for this year," she told Reuters in an email when asked why it had not published any donor lists until a few weeks ago.
A spokesman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment. Former President Bill Clinton, who also signed on to the agreement with the Obama administration, was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman said.
STATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Reuters inquiries also raised questions about a second assurance Hillary Clinton made to the Obama administration: that the State Department would be able to review any new or increased contributions to CHAI by foreign governments while she served as the nation's top diplomat. The Clintons said the pledge was intended to defuse accusations that foreign governments might use such donations to earn favors.By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars (Graphic: reut.rs/1Lvua8z) in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley.
The State Department said it was unable to cite any instances of its officials reviewing or approving new money from any foreign governments. Daley confirmed that none of the seven government donations had been submitted to the State Department for review.
One instance was an admitted oversight, Daley said: CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland's Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.Hillary Clinton told the Senate during her confirmation hearing in January, 2009, that the disclosures she and her husband agreed to were "very unprecedented."
At that time, she did not dispute the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's concerns that utter transparency was necessary to protect the integrity of the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy.
BRITAIN, AUSTRALIA BOOSTED DONATIONS Since it was published in 2008, the foundation's online donor list has been updated annually, naming everyone from individuals giving a few dollars to governments awarding eight-figure grants, the foundation said. It has been pored over by interest groups, the Clintons' political opponents, and the media.
The foundation list has not included those who donated just to CHAI since the initiative was spun off in 2010, foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said. Minassian said the foundation believed CHAI continued to be bound by the agreement with the Obama administration.
He did not elaborate on why CHAI did not honor it and referred inquiries to Daley.In the donor list that CHAI published this year, for the first time since its spin-off from the Clinton Foundation, not all donors were identified. Many were grouped together as "Individual Donations", which cumulatively came to less than $1 million. Those donations were small and so "did not warrant posting," said Daley.
In 2008, the Clintons agreed that existing government contributors that wanted to "materially increase" their commitments during Hillary Clinton's tenure would be reviewed by State. Australia almost doubled its support between 2009-2012, to $12.2 million, while the United Kingdom nearly tripled its support, to $11.2 million.
CHAI did not report these increases to the State Department because the new money was for "expansions of existing programs," Daley said.
Daley also provided a number of explanations for why other governments that appeared on a donor list provided to Reuters did not need to be reviewed by the State Department.
Swaziland and Papua New Guinea, which gave small grants for AIDS programs, were not submitted for review because the money they gave originated from other sources, including existing donor Australia and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, she said.
In the case of Sweden, its International Development Cooperation Agency has given CHAI $7.2 million since 2012 to train health workers in Zambia, but nothing in at least the previous three years. This did not need State review because Sweden had given to the foundation prior to 2009, Daley said.Rwanda, which CHAI listed as a donor, gave the charity $200,000 in 2012. CHAI considered this a fee for medical work it did in the country, not a grant or donation, and so did not tell the State Department about it, Daley said.
Money from all of these governments amounted to about 1 percent of CHAI's total budget, she said.
The White House declined to answer questions about whether the Obama administration was aware of CHAI not disclosing its donors or submitting new donations from foreign governments. White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman noted, however, that the agreement the Clintons entered into "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements."
You can continue to post your "I hate Hillary" news stories Mule but they will have zero impact on her getting elected in 2016. Enjoy the 8 years she will be in the WHite House. I know I will 
Enjoy the 8 years she will be in the WHite House. I know I will
Why?
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
Really? Who in particular?
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
Shouldn't that be a capital "L"?
Leftists.
I like that you think that is somehow derogatory. You want to foment revolution. Back a coup in Iran. What do you call that?
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
He sounded Conservative at times in 2007...
1. Cut waste - Go over every budget item line by line with a scalpel
2. Tax cut for 99% of working families
3. $9 Trillion in debt was "unpatriotic"
4. Get rid of programs that didn't work properly
5. If you make less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up "by one dime"
Candidate Bill Clinton did as well. The last two Democrats to win elections both had to sound conservative to win.
Weird.
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
He sounded Conservative at times in 2007...
1. Cut waste - Go over every budget item line by line with a scalpel
2. Tax cut for 99% of working families
3. $9 Trillion in debt was "unpatriotic"
4. Get rid of programs that didn't work properly
5. If you make less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up "by one dime"Candidate Bill Clinton did as well. The last two Democrats to win elections both had to sound conservative to win.
Weird.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right. After the lucky winner emerges, he then runs more towards the center in attempts to capture the voters he wants to stick it to and advocated against during the primaries. So what's your point, alloak?
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
He sounded Conservative at times in 2007...
1. Cut waste - Go over every budget item line by line with a scalpel
2. Tax cut for 99% of working families
3. $9 Trillion in debt was "unpatriotic"
4. Get rid of programs that didn't work properly
5. If you make less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up "by one dime"Candidate Bill Clinton did as well. The last two Democrats to win elections both had to sound conservative to win.
Weird.
The questions was which Liberals/ Leftists called Obama a conservative. I don't think you qualify as a Liberal never mind a Leftist.
JMO but your claims make Obama sound more centrist then a conservative or Leftist/ communist to me
Besides he also proposed tax hikes for those making more then $250K which we all know a "real" conservative would never support as they would never bite the hands that feed them. 😉
[Edited on 3/20/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
He sounded Conservative at times in 2007...
1. Cut waste - Go over every budget item line by line with a scalpel
2. Tax cut for 99% of working families
3. $9 Trillion in debt was "unpatriotic"
4. Get rid of programs that didn't work properly
5. If you make less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up "by one dime"Candidate Bill Clinton did as well. The last two Democrats to win elections both had to sound conservative to win.
Weird.
_________________________________________________________________
There is a list that could go on for quite awhile including:
6. Most transparent administration in history
7. I will work with The Congress to…
Far right whacko? What did he do to make himself look like a "far right wacko"?
He ran as a republican. Anything right of the communist manifesto is right wing wacky
you would think that Obama is a centristThey do think that. Some even call him a conservative.
Really? I can't ever remember a liberal here describe Obama as a conservative but have to admit that when the threads turn into insult fests I stop reading.
No "liberal" has but a number of leftists here have.
He sounded Conservative at times in 2007...
1. Cut waste - Go over every budget item line by line with a scalpel
2. Tax cut for 99% of working families
3. $9 Trillion in debt was "unpatriotic"
4. Get rid of programs that didn't work properly
5. If you make less than $250,000 your taxes won't go up "by one dime"Candidate Bill Clinton did as well. The last two Democrats to win elections both had to sound conservative to win.
Weird.
_________________________________________________________________
There is a list that could go on for quite awhile including:
6. Most transparent administration in history
7. I will work with The Congress to…
Well we know for a fact your #6 & 7 do not apply to the GOP. 😉
I would love to hear the conservatives reaction to this commentary by John Stewart on accountability surrounding the reporting on Benghazi. For 2 years Fox News practically insisted the Obama Administration was guilty of war crimes and treason before any investigation was done. The Republican led report comes out clearing anyone of wrongdoing, and I haven't heard one single right-wing outlet, or person for that matter, apologize or admit how big of a mistake that was. Yes, the clip is liberally-biased. It still drives home an important point.
I would love to hear the conservatives reaction to this commentary by John Stewart on accountability surrounding the reporting on Benghazi. For 2 years Fox News practically insisted the Obama Administration was guilty of war crimes and treason before any investigation was done. The Republican led report comes out clearing anyone of wrongdoing, and I haven't heard one single right-wing outlet, or person for that matter, apologize or admit how big of a mistake that was. Yes, the clip is liberally-biased. It still drives home an important point.
_______________________________________________________________________
Easy answer:
The Daily Show is a comedy show.
Incredibly liberals actually believe it is news.
I'm sure the families of our murdered Ambassador and three others aren't laughing.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
I would love to hear the conservatives reaction to this commentary by John Stewart on accountability surrounding the reporting on Benghazi. For 2 years Fox News practically insisted the Obama Administration was guilty of war crimes and treason before any investigation was done. The Republican led report comes out clearing anyone of wrongdoing, and I haven't heard one single right-wing outlet, or person for that matter, apologize or admit how big of a mistake that was. Yes, the clip is liberally-biased. It still drives home an important point.
Liberally biased does not mean untrue. I saw the piece last night Boyton and certainly thought about some of the folks on this Forum. I don't understand how these folks can follow, and believe the Fox News inflammatory accusations, and then not be ashamed when they are proven untrue. Fox News duped their listeners with all that Benghazi hysteria.
Even today, after millions of dollars spent on an investigation by a biased Republican committee that found the White House, Susan Rice, the US Military and the CIA completely innocent of wrong doing in the Benghazi affair, you still have slope headed fools insisting that there is a cover up.
I find it incredible, the depths of ignorance in this country.
I would love to hear the conservatives reaction to this commentary by John Stewart on accountability surrounding the reporting on Benghazi. For 2 years Fox News practically insisted the Obama Administration was guilty of war crimes and treason before any investigation was done. The Republican led report comes out clearing anyone of wrongdoing, and I haven't heard one single right-wing outlet, or person for that matter, apologize or admit how big of a mistake that was. Yes, the clip is liberally-biased. It still drives home an important point.
_______________________________________________________________________
Easy answer:
The Daily Show is a comedy show.
Incredibly liberals actually believe it is news.I'm sure the families of our murdered Ambassador and three others aren't laughing.
Your posts are far more comical than The Daily Show. Go back & read Boyton's post. There is far more accuracy in that one post than anything you've taken up bandwith on this site.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
The same ole rehashed ideas that a smart guy like you knows all too well. Hell, you could probably write good talking points for the examples.
Lassie & My Friend Flicka at a GOP theater in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.
Will the email scandal go the way of Benghazi? It looks like it will.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/15/the-plot-thins-on-the-clinton-scandal.html
The Plot Thins on the Clinton Email ‘Scandal’
The rapidly deflating Clinton email ‘scandal’ looks like it has more to do with a sclerotic government bureaucracy than any personal wrongdoing on the part of Hillary.
So over the weekend, the Times, which had already walked back some of the wilder implications of its Hillary Clinton-email reporting, did so just a little bit more. It did it under a provocative (though basically defensible) headline that tried to make it sound like the plot was thickening, but in fact this plot is thinning faster than Tony Blair’s hair (seriously, have a look). What began life two weeks ago as another “Clintons play by their own rules” mega-scandal is now pretty clearly devolving into a “what do you expect, it’s the government” saga that is about as dog-bites-man as it gets.The Times headline, on A1 Saturday, proclaimed: “Emails Clinton Said Were Kept Could Be Lost.” The article, co-bylined by the reporter who broke the original story and another, reported that the State Department did not start automatically archiving the state.gov email traffic of deputies until February of this year. This bit of information came from department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who discussed this at her daily briefing the day before (i.e. last Friday).
Now. Remember what Clinton had said at her UN press conference last week—that even though she used a personal address, everything she wrote to her deputies’ state.gov addresses was archived: “The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”
She’s right that they were captured, but that doesn’t mean they were archived, according to what Psaki said Friday. So the Times put those two factoids together and produced its Saturday piece, the most dramatic possible reading of events, which opened by informing readers that contrary to what Clinton had said, not everyone at State was required to archive their email correspondence, so maybe some of those emails she told us had been preserved had quite possibly not.
It’s a defensible news story. But here’s the thing. If you read farther down into the article—and certainly, if you read the transcript of Psaki’s Friday briefing—the picture that is very clearly beginning to emerge here is one of a lumbering department (is there any other kind when it comes to matters like this?) taking a long time (shocking!) to get itself into compliance with regulations and laws. Toward the end of the Times article, it quotes experts saying the kinds of throw-up-your-hands things that people say when they think a situation is unfortunate but not genuinely a scandal (“it really is chaos across the government in terms of what agencies do, what individuals do, and people understand that they can decide what they save and what they don’t”).
As for the State briefing, here’s what happened. Psaki fielded a question that went: “You had said that you would check—yesterday, you said a couple of times that you’re now automatically archiving...the emails of certain principals.” Psaki said yes, that process started in February of this year (there’s your news). Somebody else asked, naturally enough, why not until February of this year:
Psaki: “Out of an effort to continue to update our process. Our goal, actually, is to apply an archiving system that meets these same requirements to all employee mailboxes by the end of 2016. So it’s only natural that you’d start with the Secretary, which we did in 2013; that you would progress with other senior Department officials, and we’ll continue to make—take steps forward.”
Then somebody asked, again naturally enough, why not sooner. “I’m sure,” she said, “if we had the technical capability to, we would have, and it’s just a process that takes some time.” And then later: “This has been a process that’s been ongoing, and obviously, it’s not only time-consuming and requires a lot of effort on the part of employees to do it in other ways, but they have long been planning to do this. It’s just something that it took some time to put in place.”You get the idea. Anybody shocked to hear those words? A government agency got a directive, and it’s taking a long time to implement it!
Now, you can blame Hillary Clinton for all this if you want to. She was the boss, and in some sense the buck stops at the boss’s desk. But don’t you think the secretary kinda has bigger things on her mind than this? “Hey, Steinberg, forget Middle East peace and Russia and just go find out where we are on compliance with that 2009 National Archives and Records Administration directive!”
In other words—a lot of what has happened here would probably have happened no matter who was secretary of state. If the secretary had been John Kerry then or Dick Holbrooke or whomever—why, even if it had been Clinton scold Maureen Dowd!—the department would almost surely have operated exactly as it did in terms of regulatory compliance. So, if some of these records weren’t preserved, it wasn’t a Clinton thing. It was a State Department thing.
Now obviously, the issue of whether we can trust that Clinton and her staff made an honest effort of determining which of her emails were public and which were private remains. That’s a fair question, although it’s one we’ll probably never know the answer to (just as we’ll never know it with Jeb Bush). As I wrote previously, Clinton needs to learn some lessons from this episode, and one is that suspicions will linger about her.
She ought to be cognizant of this. Not long after she becomes a candidate, for example, she ought to say that this episode has taught her about the importance of transparency and propose that if she is president, her administration will set up a system by which some kind of independent third parties will go through high-level officials’ emails to determine what is and isn’t public. This would constitute direct acknowledgement that she gets why that looks funny to people, and it would not only put the whole thing to bed, she’d get actual points.
But in the meantime, here’s what we’ve learned. On March 2, when the story broke, this was dynamite—a scandal that might prevent Clinton from even getting in the race. Then it emerged that the original Times report overstated things a little. Then it emerged that all kinds of other former secretaries of state and cabinet officials do more or less what Clinton did (some quite a bit less). Then it emerged that Jeb Bush took seven years to release all his emails and chose which ones to put out just like Clinton did. Then it emerged that other Republican candidates also have transparency issues at least the equal of Clinton’s. And finally, it emerged last Friday that the State Department performs certain administration functions rather slowly.
And remember, the only reason we’re going through all this anyway is that the Republicans, who’ve investigated Benghazi six ways to Sunday and come up with nothing on her, are now taking rocks they’ve already turned over and turning them back over. The whole Gowdy committee is nothing but a capital-P Political sting operation. It’s clearer than ever now that this is a committee to investigate Clinton that has one job and one job only: find something, anything, that might keep her out of the White House.
[Edited on 3/20/2015 by BillyBlastoff]
I would love to hear the conservatives reaction to this commentary by John Stewart on accountability surrounding the reporting on Benghazi. For 2 years Fox News practically insisted the Obama Administration was guilty of war crimes and treason before any investigation was done. The Republican led report comes out clearing anyone of wrongdoing, and I haven't heard one single right-wing outlet, or person for that matter, apologize or admit how big of a mistake that was. Yes, the clip is liberally-biased. It still drives home an important point.
Liberally biased does not mean untrue. I saw the piece last night Boyton and certainly thought about some of the folks on this Forum. I don't understand how these folks can follow, and believe the Fox News inflammatory accusations, and then not be ashamed when they are proven untrue. Fox News duped their listeners with all that Benghazi hysteria.
Even today, after millions of dollars spent on an investigation by a biased Republican committee that found the White House, Susan Rice, the US Military and the CIA completely innocent of wrong doing in the Benghazi affair, you still have slope headed fools insisting that there is a cover up.
I find it incredible, the depths of ignorance in this country.
Have said it before - it helps them raise money. Another investigation? Why not? Infrastructure, jobs, etc - no time nor interest.
Have said it before - it helps them raise money. Another investigation? Why not? Infrastructure, jobs, etc - no time nor interest.
But I bet they put together that Pacific Trade deal. The pharmaceutical companies can't wait to get that 64 cents an hour labor cost in Vietnam. Big Agra can't wait to sell us radioactive fish caught by Chinese fishing boats.
Ain't that the American Dream?
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
The same ole rehashed ideas that a smart guy like you knows all too well. Hell, you could probably write good talking points for the examples.
Lassie & My Friend Flicka at a GOP theater in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.
I don't know what you mean. Please provide examples of some wacko ideas we can expect.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
______________________________________________________________________
At least there will be a primary for the Republicans following debates so that the citizens can actually hear the candidates answer questions.
The democrats want Hillary to run unopposed so that she will never have to answer any questions.
Hillary doesn’t do well with questions as proven by her email scandal “news conference”.
She was asked softball questions and often never answered many.
I don't know what you mean. Please provide examples of some wacko ideas we can expect.
Shouldn't that be moved to the Republican candidate thread?
Alloak I think you are just trying to set a record with number of pages for a thread.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
The same ole rehashed ideas that a smart guy like you knows all too well. Hell, you could probably write good talking points for the examples.
Lassie & My Friend Flicka at a GOP theater in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.
I don't know what you mean. Please provide examples of some wacko ideas we can expect.
Oh...so now you're naive? Go back and find many of my posts over the last couple years. They're all there for your reading. Consider it a free education. You know my positions & the issues I've addressed all too well.
This thread is like Groundhog Day.
This thread is like Groundhog Day.
_________________-_____________________________________________
The movie was funnier.
You weren't in it.........
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
The same ole rehashed ideas that a smart guy like you knows all too well. Hell, you could probably write good talking points for the examples.
Lassie & My Friend Flicka at a GOP theater in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.
I don't know what you mean. Please provide examples of some wacko ideas we can expect.
Oh...so now you're naive? Go back and find many of my posts over the last couple years. They're all there for your reading. Consider it a free education. You know my positions & the issues I've addressed all too well.
No, I'm not naïve. I'm asking a serious question. Since you're sure of it, please give us a rundown of what to expect and match it to the candidate. John Kasich - ____________, Jeb Bush -___________, Scott Walker - __________, and so on. I want to see wacko ideas, comedic ideas from the clown show.
Want to watch the upcoming dog & pony show? Wait until the GOP presidential primary season opens & see how far right the candidates run. They'll one up each other for being extreme far right.
What kind of "extreme far-Right" examples do you think we'll see in the "dog and pony show?"
The same ole rehashed ideas that a smart guy like you knows all too well. Hell, you could probably write good talking points for the examples.
Lassie & My Friend Flicka at a GOP theater in Iowa, NH, SC, etc.
I don't know what you mean. Please provide examples of some wacko ideas we can expect.
Oh...so now you're naive? Go back and find many of my posts over the last couple years. They're all there for your reading. Consider it a free education. You know my positions & the issues I've addressed all too well.
No, I'm not naïve. I'm asking a serious question. Since you're sure of it, please give us a rundown of what to expect and match it to the candidate. John Kasich - ____________, Jeb Bush -___________, Scott Walker - __________, and so on. I want to see wacko ideas, comedic ideas from the clown show.
Hey alloak, I thought this was a thread about Hillary Clinton.
This thread is like Groundhog Day.
_________________-_____________________________________________
The movie was funnier.
You weren't in it.........
He was originally cast as the groundhog, but he couldn't remember his lines.
Barack Hatfield v Hillary McCoy
