One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
The Most Active Discussions Today
 
Guns and more guns
We cannot fix gun violence in this country until we break the string of stupidity in the way right wing cult followers of the NRA raise there children


...continue reading this topic >>
 
Black Republicans Need Not Apply!
Where are the Black Republicans (toadies) who openly endorses Trump? Why are they silent? As far as I can count there is only two have the audacity to struct their feathers! Sheriff Clarke and Dr. Ben Carson! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/donald-trump-s-racism-repels-black-republicans.html. Are there anymore. Speak Up! POS Shills!
...continue reading this topic >>
 
Leaked Emails Show DNC Planned Anti Trump Protest...
What Do You Think The Press Would Be Saying Right Now If The RNC Had Done This To The DNC??? Raising Hell Is What... Don D.


Leaked Emails Show DNC Officials Planned Anti-Trump Protests

By Alex Pfeiffer - July 24, 2016 - The DC Caller Weekend


The release of Democratic National Committee emails by WikiLeaks Friday reveals that DNC officials planned anti-Donald Trump protests.

In multiple emails, DNC officials signed off and acknowledged the existence of two anti-Donald Trump protests in South Bend, IN and Billings, MT. The release of nearly 20,000 emails is the first in a WikiLeaks “Hillary Leaks” series.

Palermo, alerted Eric Walker, deputy communications director, about a Facebook page for an anti-Trump protest on May 2 in South Bend. “Whoo! Thanks to our interns for finding this out.” Walker replies, “I like it, as long as the students feel safe getting involved. I imagine this demo will be nicer than the one in San Fran today.”

That day in San Francisco protesters blocked off roads to an event Donald Trump was hosting. The Republican nominee ended up having to jump down from the highway and sneak around back to enter.

In another other email chain also on April 29, titled “Week-Ahead Notes & Assignments,” former DNC media booker Pablo Manriquez comments “this should be fun” in reference to the May protest.

University of Notre Dame, located in South Bend, is Manriquez’s alma mater. A DNC official wrote, “Pablo please reach out to any folks you think may be able to help.”

Another protest that’s directly mentioned in emails included one that occurred on May 26 in Billings, MT. The email is from May 20 and features notes on the “week ahead.”

Both the Indiana and Montana protests were non-violent. The South Bend protest had “some expletive laced chants,” and protesters carrying a Mexican flags. The Montana one had “only a few” protesters.

Intern involvement with protests is mentioned twice in the leaked emails. DNC communications director Luis Miranda bemoaned photos of an empty anti-Trump protest in Washington, D.C. in one email chain.

Miranda said: “Going forward, when our allies screw up and don’t deliver bodies in time, we either send all our interns out there or we stay away from it.. we don’t want to own a bad picture.”

Miranda was notified of the Washington protest in an email chain titled “Tv coverage of protest great.” In the original email that notified the DNC communications director of the Indiana protest, a DNC staffer wrote, “thanks to our interns for finding this out.”

DNC officials Brad Marshall, a chief financial officer, and Alan Reed, a compliance officer, also signed off on the use of Black Lives Matter organizer Deray Mckesson as a surrogate for Hillary Clinton.

Mckesson rose to prominence after being active in protests in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD. He has yet to endorse a candidate and said protests are likely to happen at the upcoming Democratic Party convention.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/#ixzz4FMBGKqRl
...continue reading this topic >>
 
 
Remember the last time whites rioted...
...because a black police officer shot a unarmed white person? Neither can I. And that is the difference between white Republicans and black Libturds. One group is civilized.
...continue reading this topic >>
 
America is about to meet the real Donald Trump.
Over the next three months Americans are going to meet the people Trump screwed over the last few decades. They look very much like the people he is now claiming to serve as their savior. Small businesses he refused to pay, widows run out of their homes by Trumps lawyers, creditors bilked out of millions, hope filled students conned out of their life savings and put into debt by his fake university, and employees cheated out of overtime and back pay. These people often don't have a voice, but you can bet in the next few months Democrats are going to give them a voice so they can teach us about the real Donald Trump!
...continue reading this topic >>
 
An open letter to Senator Ted Cruz
http://centurylink.net/news/read/article/the_associated_press-in_a_bumpy_coronation_trump_wins_the_crown-ap




Mr. Cruz. I must in all honestly ask you, why did you not endorse Mr. Trump?

Do you not understand this election, is the most important in the history of our country?

Do you not know, or understand, you have given the democrats fuel, to fire the flames of discourse in this country?

Do you know, that what you did not do tonight, is keep a pledge you made at the start of the republican race for the president. You said you would support, the candidate that receives the nomination of the republican party. That candidate is Mr. Trump. Yet you refused to endorse him.


You have disgraced us all. Are you so petty you could not set your differences aside for one hour and help solidify the party unity for the good of our country. You claim to all you and your father love this country that has given you so much.
Yet in a space of 15 minutes, you managed to slap right in the face, every one that wants to see our country great again.
Including your father.

What you did tonight, to your core supporter's, is one of the most despicable selfish acts, I have witnessed from a sitting senator in my life time. Please don't ever again say you love this country. For you have demonstrated, you are what Mr. Trump said of you, laying Ted. I withdraw my support from you, as well as any financial support I would have given you.

RETW
...continue reading this topic >>
 
You Simply Must Read This...
You Simply Must Read This, Blow Your Mind, No Kidding... Don D.

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 - Al Duncan Wrote:


My reasons for forwarding this Clinton treatise are because I personally remember them all and verified each account as it transpired. But moreover, I firmly believe that Hillary is of the same spirit as Jezebel and Bill of the same spirit as her husband Ahab, the most devious couple in the 5000+ year span of Bible history.

For those of you who know the Biblical account of this treacherous couple can be refreshed by this extremely powerful account, along with a multitude of various revelations, by reading 1 Kings 16:29 – 22:40. And those of you who don’t know this historic account will be thoroughly enlightened.


REMEMBER WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT??

If you're over 35, you lived through it, so read it and recollect.

For those under 35, read this, be sure to verify and don't forget.
________________________________


When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over an attempt to health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't get a vote in a Democrat controlled US Congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.

Next, she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake."

Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.

Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide (by shooting himself in the mouth with one gun and through the neck with another), and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen. (Talk About 'White-Trash'!)

Now we are exposed to the unsecured keeping and attempted destruction of beyond Top Secret emails while Hillary was US Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation. What "shoe will fall" next?

Al Duncan
alduncan@pacific.net

Pretty well sums it up on "What Difference Does It Make" Hillary and the Clinton Fund recipient she's worked so diligently on to 'feather her and Bill's nest'! -- dw
...continue reading this topic >>
 
 
Assange Says His Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary's Arrest...
Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest

Wikileaks - July 25, 2016 - Inquisitr


Julian Assange has made an incredible statement in an interview with ITV. Assange says that Wikileaks, the infamous whistle-blowing website, will soon be publishing documents that contain “enough evidence” for the Department of Justice to indict Hillary Clinton, the expected Democratic nominee.

This comes after the Wikileaks site published 30,322 emails from Clinton’s private email server, with dates ranging from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.

The first of the DNC leaks hit two days ago and more are expected.

It will be weeks before the import of the leaks is fully understood. However, the leaks have already claimed their first victim: Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Schultz has pledged to step down as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

The DNC is the body responsible for selecting the next Democratic presidential candidate. The disgrace and resignation of Debbie Schultz vindicates Bernie Sanders, who has always taken the stance that, under Schultz, the DNC was an arm of the Clinton campaign.

Sanders first made that claim publicly back in May, reports Telesur TV.

“Sanders’ campaign has long been critical of Wasserman Shultz’s performance as head of the committee, claiming that the DNC has favored his presidential primary challenger, Hillary Clinton.”

Sanders argues that it would be a disaster to hold a presidential election with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump facing off, because both candidates are so deeply disliked.

“We need a campaign, an election, coming up which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked. I don’t want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils.”

Bernie Sanders’ campaign has long been critical of Wasserman Shultz’s performance as head of the committee, claiming that the DNC has favored his presidential primary challenger, Hillary Clinton.

One of the most disturbing, but not illegal, revelations in the Assange leak is the DNC’s baiting of the candidate’s religion.

In one of the leaked emails, Sanders’ atheism was discussed as a point that Hillary could use to attack him, reports The Intercept.

“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Many fans of Sanders had been celebrating the fact that — as far as they could see — the practice of carefully scrutinizing a candidate’s religious affiliations was going out of fashion in American politics. Hardly anyone had made strong statements either way about Bernie Sanders possibly becoming the first secular Jewish candidate for a major political party.

“[It is] unclear why the Democratic National Committee, which isn’t supposed to favor one Democratic candidate over another until they receive a nomination, would have attempted to subvert the Sanders campaign on the grounds that ‘he is an atheist.'”

No less disturbing, and possibly illegal, is what looks like the sale of political offices in exchange for donations to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, called the practice “unethical, if not illegal,” reports The Daily Caller.

“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fundraising operations of the Democratic Party. That is unethical, if not illegal.”

In perhaps an equally damaging move, Clinton has announced that the disgraced Debbie Schultz will be heading her campaign for president after the convention, according to Fortune.

“Hillary Clinton is thanking her “longtime friend” Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the Florida congresswoman’s decision to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee. Clinton says that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of her campaign’s 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country.”

Donald Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has said that Hillary Clinton should follow her friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s lead and drop out of the race.

Manafort said that Clinton’s actions are far worse than Schultz’s. Trump’s man stated that Schultz’s emails only put the Democratic Party at risk, “but Hillary Clinton’s emails put all of America at risk.”

http://www.inquisitr.com/3346011/democrat-scandal-julian-assange-claims-new-leaks-will-send-hillary-clinton-to-prison-over-campaign-to-destroy-bernie-sanders/#tYJlsjYc7mYAbRox.99
...continue reading this topic >>
 
Could the left be planning a military coup if Trump wins?
I don't know about this but the chances are very strong that they may try this. Of course, they need only to win to put our first dictator in office. Do they have enough control of the military for Obama to do anything like this? If he allows the election to take place I have to wonder if he can pull off something like this.


http://constitution.com/left-planning-military-coup-trump-wins/
...continue reading this topic >>
 
Why can't Hillary stop fudging the truth?
What is it with Hillary Clinton? What is it about this brilliant and accomplished woman—described by Barack Obama as possibly “more qualified” to be president than anyone in history—that makes so many people certain she is an incurable liar? More than anything else about Clinton—her occasional tin ear for politics, her seeming inability to connect with large crowds, her ultracautiousness—it is the trust issue that could yet cost her a general election she should otherwise win, given her opponent’s vulnerabilities.

Plainly put, Clinton herself has kept the issue alive over 25 years of public life, with long-winded, defensive, obfuscating answers to questions that—in politics, if not in law—cry out for a crisp yes-or-no reply.

Email-gate is only the latest step on this long, winding road. Consider just one brief, recent revelatory exchange with Charlie Rose, in which Rose noted (correctly) that FBI Director James Comey had called her “careless,” and Clinton replied with a flurry of nonresponsive words: “Well, I would hope that you like many others would also look at what he said when he testified before Congress, because when he did, he clarified much of what he had said in his press conference.”

“But he said it was sloppy,” Rose persisted.

“No,” Clinton insisted, “he did not.”

Yes, he did, too. Asked to explain what he had intended by the word "careless," Comey explained that it was a common-sense term, meant to convey “real sloppiness.” To pretend otherwise is to persist in the pattern that Clinton has followed from virtually the moment she became a national figure in her husband’s first presidential campaign. Over the past quarter-century she has all too often offered up pained and partial answers to controversies, too often seeming to hide more than she is willing to reveal, only to find that, again and again, the issue blows up in her face.

The pattern is unmistakable, from the Whitewater inquiry (when she resisted disclosing documents about a failed Arkansas land deal) to her 10,000 percent profits in commodity trades (which she explained by saying she’d read The Wall Street Journal) to the Rose Law Firm billing records (which infamously and mysteriously turned up in the White House residence after she’d said they were missing) to the Monica Lewinsky affair and the State Department emails themselves.

Twenty years after the New York Times columnist William Safire first called Clinton “a congenital liar” in print, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus could still rouse his convention delegates in Cleveland with an unyielding refrain about the emails. “She lied,” Priebus cried. “And she lied over and over and over. She lied! She lied!”

Clinton’s penchant for dissembling in discussion of her personal and financial dealings is all the more puzzling because it stands in such sharp contrast to her willingness to articulate clear principles on the policy front, whether with her passionate speech on women’s rights at the Beijing Women’s Conference in 1995, her speech last year on Internet freedom, or, for that matter, her courageous, if politically unpopular, effort to pass health insurance reform two decades ago. (Her stances in this campaign on hot-button issues like trade have sometimes been more expedient.)

Moreover, dissembling is not always a bad trait in a president. Some of the greatest, most notably Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who enjoyed playing his aides off against each other by letting each think he’d sided with them on a given issue, have been masters of the art. Even Abraham Lincoln was not immune. “To develop public support or outflank opposition, he would sometimes conceal his hand or dissemble,” wrote the historian LaWanda Cox. “And he kept his options open.”

Still, Clinton has suffered for her willingness to be economical with the truth at times.

The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll found that nearly 7 in 10 voters don’t believe Clinton is honest and trustworthy (more than 6 in 10 feel the same way about Donald Trump). A like number say she did “something wrong” with her email. Her trust deficit—fewer than 3 in 10 voters say she is honest and trustworthy—may be her single greatest weakness heading into the fall campaign. And if she wins, it is a reality that would seem to presage a presidency of unusual secretiveness.

Clinton bears an even greater burden than her husband in this regard. Bill Clinton was routinely distrusted by a majority of voters during his time in office, but when he ran for reelection in 1996, polls nevertheless showed that as many as 65 percent of voters believed he cared about them—an advantage of some 20 points over his rival Bob Dole. As I once wrote in the New York Times, the president’s “job approval ratings seemed to rise with his legal bills.”

Hillary Clinton enjoys no such benefit of the doubt: This year’s polls have consistently shown majorities of voters saying she does not care about people like them (though Trump’s ratings on that question tend to be even worse).

To make matters worse, it’s not clear just what—if anything—Clinton can do about the problem, at least before November.

“I don’t think she can do much to change her trust numbers in the campaign,” says one veteran Democratic consultant who has known the Clintons since their earliest campaigns for the Arkansas governorship. “Her numbers may improve some, but only with voters who are going to vote for her, and quit responding negatively on the trust issue. Clinton voters may reconcile their support for her by moving to a positive on trust.”

“As president, HRC could change the trust numbers,” he adds, “but not in the campaign.”

To be fair, Clinton has been the subject of more than two decades of sustained—and often unhinged attacks—from quarters as high-minded as the Wall Street Journal and as vicious as the darkest corners of the Internet. Her introduction to the national media came in the unholy whirlwind of Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers and her husband’s draft record that marked the 1992 campaign, and her disdain for the press is palpable, persistent and hard-won.

But to say that she is often her own worst enemy is to understate the case.

In February, CBS News anchor Scott Pelley asked Clinton, “Have you always told the truth?”

“I’ve always tried to,” she replied. “Always. Always.”

When Pelley noted that Jimmy Carter had famously promised, “I’ll never lie to you,” Clinton plunged ahead.

“Well, but you know,” she said, “you’re asking me to say, ‘Have I ever?’ I don’t believe I ever have. I don’t believe I ever will. I’m going to do the best I can to level with the American people.”

All too often over the years, Clinton’s best has turned out not to be good enough.

It is one thing for Gov. Chris Christie to put Clinton on mock trial at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Or for delegates at Quicken Loans Arena to take up a chant of “Lock her up!” in reply. It is quite another for a former attorney general of the United States to say—as Michael Mukasey did at the GOP convention—that Clinton would become “the first president in history to take the constitutional oath of office after already having violated it,” by her handling of the email server and her shifting, inconsistent and ultimately inaccurate explanations of why she did so.
...continue reading this topic >>
 
For more, check out Active Topics page.
 
Forum Sections
 
Main
This is where we talk about politics, economics, and life in general.
Topics: 66128
Posts: 1408445
Subscribed users: 15094
 
Introduce Yourself
New to the forum? Jump in, say hello, and introduce yourself here.
Topics: 801
Posts: 16997
Subscribed users: 15071
 
General Chit-Chat (non-political talk)
A place to talk about anything else (discussions not related to politics or the economy).
Topics: 7115
Posts: 169792
Subscribed users: 15102
 
All Sections
List of all sections on the forum.
 
Forum Statistics
 
Total number of users: 15240
Total number of posts: 1604541
Posts in the last 7 days: 8603
Posts in the last 24 hours: 1311
Top 5 users in the last 24 hours: Loki(42)   CarolSeer2016(38)   eagleye13(36)   JFlorio(34)   Cool Breeze(33)  
 
Users currently on the forum (16): Admin   America Only   BigJim   buffalo   CounterRevolutionary   Doc110   EconomistDon   fullspinzoo   Harpooner1   jack sequim wa   JFlorio   Pennylynn   Shirley Cameron   Steve700   whole2th   XLCH  
(guest visitors aren't counted)
 
Today's Birthdays: 4Him   Buck   dynamophyl   krapaol   MogenD65   Sapper  
(birthday users who are currently online are marked bold)
 
          
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.