Sunday, April 24, 2016

One of the notorious Koch brothers actually thinks that a Hillary Clinton presidency might be preferable to any of the GOP front runners getting into the White House.

Courtesy Politico: 

Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said in an interview airing Sunday that “it’s possible” another Clinton in the White House could be better than having a Republican president. 

Koch, the CEO of Koch industries, made the comment to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl for an interview airing on ABC’s This Week. 

The comment came after Karl asked about former President Bill Clinton’s term, to which Koch said Clinton was “in some ways” better than George W. Bush. 

“As far as the growth of government, the increase in spending, it was two-and-a-half times under Bush that it was under Clinton,” he said.

Koch was then asked if he could see himself voting for Hillary in the general, to which he replied:   

“We would have to believe her actions would have to be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way,” he said. 

Personally I think that last comment is simply a way to soften his statements a little, as there is no way to determine a President's actions until after they take office.

Besides it was clear later in the interview that Koch was actually frightened by what the GOP is offering as candidates this time around.

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

ABC’s Jon Karl asked him about his reaction to Donald Trump‘s Muslim ban. He said that’s “antithetical to our approach” and said he was alarmed by Trump suggesting a Muslim registry, likening it to Nazi Germany.

Koch also addressed Ted Cruz talking about “making the sand glow” with carpet-bombing in the Middle East. Koch said that’s clear hyperbole, but said for someone to think that appeals to Americans, “that is frightening.” 

I would suggest that there are probably no small number of long time Republican voters who will sit this election out or stifle their gag reflex and vote for Hillary if either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is at the top of the GOP ticket. 

133 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:37 AM

    Well, if they are 'thinking' people, how could they not vote for Hillary considering the alternatives?
    GeorgiaPeach

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:34 AM

      I wonder. We live in an area that has become gentrified in the last 20 years or so. It's about 50/50 Democrats and Republicans, the Republicans being of the well-educated, informed type (aka "RINOs").

      Not one of our GOP neighbors is voting for Trump--in fact, they are horrified by him. They're not much fonder of Cruz. Some of them say they honestly don't know whether they will vote for Hillary, or just not vote at all.

      Considering how gung-ho they all were for Romney, that's saying a lot about the current state of the GOP.


      Delete
    2. 66gardeners12:26 PM

      10:34
      I'm experiencing about the same thing in Pasadena, Maryland which is more republican. I've told more than one person they should be ashamed of themselves if they vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, and they are speechless to defend doing so. They are even ashamed to admit they voted for Romney or McCain. When I ask them if Obama has been a disappointment and they answer "yes", I ask them in what regard? Again, speechless.

      As a democrat, if I had to choose which one they should vote for, I'd take Trump over Cruz, but it would be like picking poison over a gun.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous8:44 AM

    I am a very cynical person and I think that Charles (and David) Koch are hoping to push Democrats into supporting a Bernie Sanders candidacy. I don't trust those two reptiles at all. They may be a bit afraid of having a fellow billionaire (aka Donald Trump) as a candidate because he would not be so beholden to them, but they do not want to see Hillary Clinton become president. Nor do they want to lose control of Congress or any of the states they now hold in strangleholds. Including my own state, Michigan.
    Beaglemom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:11 AM

      Actually, they should love Hillary. They're own billionaire corporations and they all have Hilly in their expensive pockets.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:21 AM

      I usually agree with Beaglemom and this time is no exception. Koch likes what Bernie says about the Im/Ex bank; he would really like to parachute Paul Ryan into the GOP nom. He's trying to blow up HRC's candidacy. He won't, though. He's been after her for years.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:30 AM

      You thoughtful and intelligent comments are a very big reason why I read here, Beaglemom. Nothing against Gryphen, but it's just nice to have another's point of view.

      Delete
    4. I agree (as I so often do) with Beaglemom.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous10:12 AM

      Beaglemom for Congress! (Any chance, Beaglemom? Love your comments!)

      Delete
    6. Anonymous11:00 AM

      9:11, I'm with you. Hillary has always seemed to be a repub in democrats clothing. Just saying. I'll vote for her but only because she's a tab bit better than any of the shitbag's on the right.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:08 AM

      She may "seem to be a repub," but she's not. She is also not just a "tad bit better" than the republicans on the right.

      I'm glad you will vote for her, regardless, but you should feel better knowing that she is a democrat and a liberal.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous11:24 AM

      Oh, sure, 9:11, they love Hillary...except for everything she stands for.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous11:51 AM

      So many have fallen for the rightwing smears of Hillary for the past 30 years. It's astounding.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous12:25 PM

      @Anonymous 11:51 AM

      ''So many have fallen for the rightwing smears of Hillary for the past 30 years. It's astounding.''
      ***********************
      Exactly. They have been smearing Hillary for decades, because they are afraid of her. Our soon-to-be first woman president.
      Even Nancy Reagan before she died said the time has come.

      Delete
    11. One of my coworkers told me that she has "reservations" about Hilary. When I pressed for more she said, "Oh, Benghazi. I just have reservations." I told her that she ought to have reservations about the fact that the House has held investigations on investigations and hasn't managed to come up with anything that she's done wrong, but if they've sown doubt, they've spent those millions well- for them.

      I'm amazed by the people who don't stop to think their positions through.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous3:35 PM

      Beaglemom and Nefer are both amazing! Luv ya both!

      Delete
    13. Anonymous8:32 PM

      @ 3:35 pm
      Same here.

      dowl

      Delete
  3. Anonymous9:05 AM

    Keep telling yourself they don't like Hillary Beaglemom. One of them seems to be proving you wrong in the matter,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:22 AM

      If you actually read the article, you'll see that Koch does not prefer HRC. Please read it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:26 AM

      Read above, 9:05, from Gryph -

      "Koch was then asked if he could see himself voting for Hillary in the general, to which he replied:

      'We would have to believe her actions would have to be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way,' he said."

      So, no, the Koch Brothers are NOT voting for or endorsing Hillary. He said he doesn't like her rhetoric. READ!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:39 AM

      Some people don't like to read anymore. They just glance at a headline, interpret it through whatever skewed viewpoint they have, and throw out an insult based on that interpretation.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:00 PM

      The depth of your intellect is really sad.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:26 PM

      @Anonymous 10:39 AM

      'Some people don't like to read anymore. They just glance at a headline, interpret it through whatever skewed viewpoint they have, and throw out an insult based on that interpretation.''
      ************************
      Exactly

      Delete
    6. 66gardeners12:29 PM

      Hillary's rhetoric being clean air and water.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous12:54 PM

      "Some people don't like to read anymore. They just glance at a headline..."

      And it seems that headline writers often don't read the stories themselves. In our local paper the front page headline often implies something entirely different than the headline for the conclusion of the article.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous9:13 AM

    Not that the Koch Brothers actually would like some Clinton policies.


    Unknown Clinton history: That time where Bill hatched a marriage between religion and the government. How's that been working for you lately?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01jacoby.html

    "Keeping the Faith, Ignoring the History

    By SUSAN JACOBYFEB. 28, 2009


    NEARLY everyone now takes for granted the wisdom, constitutionality and inevitability of some form of federal financing for community social services run by religious groups. Who anymore can imagine that the United States managed to exist for over 200 years without the government providing any direct aid to faith and its works?

    It is truly dismaying that amid all the discussion about President Obama’s version of faith-based community initiatives, there has been such a widespread reluctance to question the basic assumption that government can spend money on religiously based enterprises without violating the First Amendment. The debate has instead focused on whether proselytizing or religious hiring discrimination should be permitted when church groups take public money. This shows how easy it is to institutionalize a bad idea based on unexamined assumptions about service to a greater good.

    In 1996, President Bill Clinton started down the slippery slope toward a constitutionally questionable form of faith-based aid when he signed a welfare reform bill that included a “charitable choice” provision allowing religious groups to compete for grants. Under President George W. Bush, a separate White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established — a significant expansion of “charitable choice.” Mr. Bush, who instituted his faith-based program through executive orders rather than trying to get a bill establishing the office through Congress, quickly put the money to political use."



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:38 AM

      Whatever. Please try to make a case for the relevancy of this article from 7 years ago. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. The relevancy of this article is twofold:
      Fold #1: The shit was started by a Clinton
      Fold #2: The shit is still going on.

      Delete
    3. At that time, religious groups hadn't grown nearly as abusive as they have become. There was a push to promote religious activity in the churches; this must have seemed like a good idea and 7 years ago, people were much less likely to think "abusive god freaks" about church charities.

      Unfortunately, churches showed that they could not be trusted to handle charitable funds legally without abusing their prospective clients. As in, "Just go in and listen and pick up your stuff on the way out."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:02 AM

      Uh huh, and equating Dubya with faith-based anything is to laugh. Even the Bible says "not words but deeds." Look at what HE did.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:31 PM

      I hear you 9:38
      Talk about tangents
      Stay focused 9:13

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:56 PM

      "A Clinton?" I wouldn't want to be held accountable/assumed to be the same as my husband. Did you know that women are separate thinking people 9:13? They don't need a man to tell them what to think and do any more.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous9:14 AM

    Why wouldn't the Koch brothers like Clinton? She's the moderate Republican they're looking for: her agenda and views are far to the right of Democrats 40 years ago. And she's a war hawk. If she's elected president, we'll be at war with Iran by her second state of the union speech. Great news for captains of the military-industrial complex/ fossil fuel barrons like the Kochs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:40 AM

      The Kochs are extremists but they cannot control Trump. He's got as much $, or close to it, as they do. So they are trying to blow up Trump; they don't like Hillary either, though. Do you know the history of Citizens United? It was created so that the Kochs could stop Hillary.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:51 AM

      These RW schemes to force issues to the Supreme Court tend to be well thought out.

      Citizens United Not Timid was created so that the Kochs and other rich conservatives could spend unlimited dollars buying any politician they wanted.

      Hilary was the fundraising hook and media magnet for CUNT, not the goal for CUNT.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:40 AM

      Hillary Clinton is a "moderate republican" who voted with Bernie Sanders 93% of the time she was in the Senate. I wish all Republicans did the same thing! (sarcasm on the last part).

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:43 AM

      9:51 - Link?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:03 AM

      Who do you think "C#NT" refers to?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:37 PM

      refers to $arah Palin

      Delete
    7. Anonymous4:19 PM

      Links. Read all three and decide whether Roger Stone just got lucky or whether that was the plan all long.

      http://www.salon.com/2008/01/24/roger_stone/

      http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/15713

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/james-bopp-citizens-united

      Delete
  6. Anonymous9:16 AM

    Getting any kind of recommendation from a Koch is troubling.

    “We would have to believe her actions would have to be quite different than her rhetoric, let me put it that way,” he said."

    Hillary's campaign is just rhetoric, I fear. She has momentarily turned left of center because of Bernie. In an interview she admited her pro-Iraq war vote was a mistake. "Governing is hard. That's why I titled my book Hard Choices, " she says and guffaws. Her laughter was forced and insincere. It's not funny.

    There's a reason for many, many voters' caution about her (past voting patterns, pro-war, lack of any substantive bills when in Congress, 1% status, seeming lack of empathy, quick to anger apparently, lack of transparency, a few dozen loyal-to-a-fault inner circle that tell her what she needs to know, health problems...)

    Better, of COURSE, than any gopper the GOP is presenting, and for status quo -- you bet -- but will she get out the vote? We better hope so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:41 AM

      If you think supporting single payer in the 90's and working on behalf of women's rights and the rights of children since the 80's are "a rightwing agenda points," then you've been living in an alternate universe, not the real one.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:56 AM

      I'm glad you brought up war. Do you know who else voted for the Iraq war? John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Sarandon favorite John Edwards. Do you call them Pro-War? Just wondering.

      Also, have you read what HRC said in regard to her vote that time? She did not vote to go to war. She voted to let the President put forth UN Resolution for a diplomatic solution and avoid war. Bush lied and did not do that. Look up her speech on the Senate floor at the time. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous10:15 AM

      Not the OP, 9:41 AM, you have a valid point but I still don't trust her. She has a lot of questionable ties.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:45 AM

      10:15 - Please let me know what her "questionable ties" are. I am interested in your POV. I would also posit that it is impossible to become President and First Lady without leaving office with some "questionable ties." It's the nature of the job. It will be interesting to see how the Obama Foundation is able to navigate those complex waters (and I LOVE President and Mrs. Obama!).

      Delete
    5. Anonymous11:21 AM

      Please. Just please. You sound like you're reading a memo you got from Bernie's campaign bros aka Might-as-Well-Be-Extreme Right Wingers.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:34 PM

      @ Anonymous 9:16 AM

      '''Getting any kind of recommendation from a Koch is troubling.'''
      **********************************You are really reaching. I came on this thread just to see who would make that ridiculous statement you just made. I knew some ill-informed reactionary would say what you did.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous12:40 PM

      Girly men fear Hillary

      Delete
    8. Anonymous1:36 PM

      Anonymous10:15 AM,

      Let me paraphrase your comment: "I know that all of the reasons that I have for hating HRC are false and have been refutes many, many times, but I chose not to believe them, so I will go on hating and "not trusting" her because it fits my narrative."

      Delete
    9. Anonymous1:36 PM

      What's a "girly man?"

      I'm a Hillary supporter and a feminist and I don't think anyone should be using "girly" as an insult.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous2:03 PM

      There was no vote held about whether to go to war. There was no war, it was an illegal invasion ordered by Bush and his co-conspirators against the determination of the United Nations.

      Look it up before you claim that Hillary Clinton personally fired the starting pistol.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous2:05 PM

      That's a big bunch of typing for a concern troll. Slow day?

      Delete
  7. Anonymous9:17 AM

    I thought I saw this guy on Chris Wallace show. This morning, via feed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:18 AM

    I agree with Beaglemom. Koch is trolling. The berniebro's are tweeting this like mad to go against Hillary. - SJP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:44 AM

      The Bernie or Busters are losing. What else can they do? I read that they only had 8 people signed up to canvas in a major city in PA before 4/26. After Tuesday, they will be migrating to Jill Stein or to writing Bernie's name. Am I right? #PurityFirst

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:41 AM

      Sanders is helping to poison the well.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1:02 PM

      I admit it- I voted for Ralph Nader in '96. But that's because I knew Clinton would sweep my state (and I was an idiot). Anyone who does such a thing now is really playing with fire.

      Delete
    4. Koch isn't for Hillary. He said she might not be so bad because he anticipates a race between her and Trump. He doesn't want Trump in the White House. He and his minions pulled out of the RNC but they won't go so far as to donate money to the Anti-Trump people. They're just sorta sitting out the presidential and contributing money to smaller races. They know their money is better spent on Senate and House races than for president.

      He also pointed out similarities of Trump to Nazis (he should know).

      But he is not supporting Hillary. He is NOT supporting Trump and this is his way of expressing it.

      Delete
  9. Balzafiar9:18 AM

    I think perhaps they are attempting to employ reverse psychology on the voter.

    They know people don't trust them and would tend to vote the opposite of who they might vote for. It's an effective technique unless one realizes what they are up to.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous9:23 AM

    Anyone a Koch would vote for would be scratched off my list. I very much doubt any Repub voter would vote Hillary since they still haven't stopped shouting Benghazi at her. But tell yourself whatever you need to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:44 AM

      Yes, he says he is not going to vote for her, because he doesn't like her "rhetoric." He just doesn't like Trump.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:46 AM

      Believe it or not, there are plenty of Republicans who think the whole Benghazi thing is a waste of time. The approval rating of our present congress is in the toilet and not just among Democrats.

      But you keep telling yourself that all Republicans have been shouting "Benghazi" instead of just the ones who post incessantly on the internet.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:15 AM

      Who needs Benghazi any longer when there are 12 FBI agents dedicated to uncovering her email malfeasance? Benghazi is yesterday's news, although they'll still use it against her if she is nominated and elected President.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous12:44 PM

      10:46
      The republicans who think Benghazi is a waste of time are supporting republicans why exactly?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous1:35 PM

      I don't understand your question 12:44. The point of this thread is that there are Republicans who will vote for Clinton because they can't stand Cruz or Trump, despite Beghazi. They will do this because they aren't swayed by the Benghazi bullshit the Republican Congress has been flogging.

      If you are asking about why they support Republicans in general, I have no idea. I don't know how anyone can be a Republican.

      Delete
  11. Hedgewytch9:28 AM

    The Koch's are primarily responsible for where the GOP is today! And he doesn't like it? Well, tough, you sleep in the bed you made!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:51 AM

      Two words for Charles: "Boo Hoo". I agree that they are largely responsible for the mess the GOP is in today.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:46 AM

      This is very true.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous11:20 AM

      They and all other powerful Establishment Republicans are guilty of turning a blind eye to the Tea Party's antics in order to win their votes.

      Now the Tea Party has taken over Congress and their choices for the Republican nomination are Tea Party and Tea Party Light.

      Establishment Republicans should have nipped this movement in the bud and let the Tea Party form their OWN party, but the GOP was greedy for votes, votes from the very bottom of the barrel that that Establishment abhors, but still votes. They romanced them, and they ended up represented in Congress by their "base".

      Serves them right. The Tea Party should have never been allowed to happen and it's killed what was the GOP.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous9:34 AM

    Love this response from Politicusa: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/24/bernie-sanders-rips-non-partisan-mask-republican-money-man-charles-koch.html

    "The fact that Charles Koch almost said something nice about Hillary Clinton says more about how much the Koch brothers hate Donald Trump than like Clinton. The Koch brothers aren’t non-partisan. The Kochs only support Republicans. The Koch brothers have budgeted $900 million for beating Democrats this fall."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:19 AM

      They 'had' budgeted $900 million! Bet they are not shilling out a dime to either Trump or Cruz!

      And, yes, The Donald is taking money even though he constantly says he isn't!

      Most importantly is that we now know the Koch Brothers are sane!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:46 AM

      Exactly, yet plenty of people are using this to "prove" that Clinton is a neocon or some such thing.

      Delete
    3. They must be really scared. Private sources gave Romney $400 million. From what I understand, Rove did a lot of fundraising for Romney.

      And once again, visiting the memory of Rove,hyperventilating, pale and sweaty, rushing around the set trying desperately to figure out a way that Mitt could win.

      Thank you, Anonymous.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous11:27 AM

      Ivyfree, I still laugh at Rove insisting Ohio was going Romney as "President Obama is re-elected" was flashing on the screen behind him. What a doddering fool!

      Delete
    5. 66gardeners12:47 PM

      While still hyperventilating that night, don't forget Megyn Kelly asking Rove, "is this math you do as a republican to make yourself feel better?".

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:54 PM

      That was an excellent moment. One of my all time favorites. I'll never forget it.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous9:41 AM

    I don't know. Republicans have been stewing over Hillary Clinton for decades. They really can't tolerate powerful women. I hope you're right that they will switch to her, but that's a lot of misogyny to put aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:59 AM

      All I know is that most Independents voted for Romney in 2012. That's why I'm not going to waste any time courting them in 2016: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:01 AM

      Agreed, and if Congress remains GOP controlled then we will face obstruction just like President Obama's tenure if not worse.

      Not meant as cynical, but we all know how it goes by now.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous9:52 AM

    Anyone a Koch would vote for would be scratched off my list. I very much doubt any Repub voter would vote Hillary since they still haven't stopped shouting Benghazi at her. But tell yourself whatever you need to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:48 AM

      She's very vocally pro-choice and for Planned Parenthood, and that would stop most of the GOP for voting for her right there. (It was that way in the old days! In the old days, the Bush Family advocated for Planned Parenthood!)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:50 AM

      If it's either Trump or Cruz in November, many of my GOP family/friends have said they would vote for Hillary. They strongly disagree with her on issues but believe Trump/Cruz are terrifying. I don't know what they'd do if it was a Trump/Sanders election but know they don't think Sanders is qualified or has a grasp on national security issues.

      Delete
    3. Too Old to Type11:34 AM

      Correcting myself at 10:48 - should be: "It wasn't that way in the old days! In the old days, the Bush Family advocated for Planned Parenthood!"

      Delete
    4. Anonymous4:13 PM

      Anyone a Koch would vote for would be scratched off my list.
      --------
      I think that is exactly the plan, 9:52

      Mildred

      Delete
  15. Anonymous9:56 AM

    If Trump gets elected and builds a wall, I will start a tunnel digging business in Arizona.

    Going to get rich.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:55 AM

      Dibs on the shovel concession stand!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:24 AM

      Great idea! Start it in Scottsdale on the unpurchased, empty Palin property. Plenty of room for workers to hang their hat after a long day's work! Squatters Unite! LOL

      Delete
  16. Anonymous10:47 AM

    They hate Trump and they hate Cruz. This has nothing to do with liking Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:30 AM

      Exactly.

      Also, Koch used the qualifying word 'possibly' as to whether he thought Hillary would be a better president.

      Delete
    2. Exactly.

      Koch can't say don't vote for Trump or "I'm not voting for Trump" so this is the best he can do.

      It will be interesting to see what he and his astroturf SuperPACs do if the race ends up being between Trump and Clinton. He probably won't vote for either of them and the money will go towards Congressional and state races.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous10:51 AM

    The koch brothers are not Clinton supporters.

    Actually, they would probably prefer Sanders because he just won't commit to helping down ballot democrats get elected. The Koch brothers would love to keep Congress controlled by Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:57 PM

      good one :-)

      Delete
  18. Anonymous10:52 AM

    The president of Italy has come out supporting Hillary as the most qualified to keep the world safe and partner with other nations, building on Pres. Obama's policies. (interview today on CNN)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chenagrrl11:15 AM

    I'd be more comfortable with his babble if he had said it a month before the general election.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11:15 AM

    Hillary's brief twitter response to the Koch interview: ‏

    @HillaryClinton 3m3 minutes ago
    Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:51 AM

      Good. Who needs this @sshole's endorsement.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:53 AM

      http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/24/hillary-clinton-tells-charles-koch-fake-endorsement-shove.html - "Hillary tells Koch to take his fake endorsement and shove it."

      Delete
  21. Anonymous12:08 PM

    And America agrees. Of course Senator Clinton would be better.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:15 PM

    I agree this is the latest and lamest republican spin to win agenda 2016. The opposite, the negative, the chaos, the insane, etc. you name and they will spin it to win. But sadly for this ass clown show, we know them well. Unethical, shameful, lousy deceitful hogs. Seriously, this group is the party of mental illness and traitors.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous12:18 PM

    The General Election has begun. HRC did not even mention Bernie today in CT, Let's keep our focus on stopping the GOP, the party of the Kochs,

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous12:21 PM

    They fear the 99%, Senator Sanders, Senator Edwards and many more. We the people placed Senator Obama into Our Whitehouse and homes. We the people will do the same with Senator Sanders and Senator Edwards. Zit united MUST be overturned on day one. NO compromise. Will Senator Clinton do that? Day one is the removal of Citizen United. It is the only way ahead into the future America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:38 PM

      Who is Senator Edwards? Do you mean Congresswoman Donna Edwards? She is not a senator. She's a Representative and sad to say, she's losing her run for the Senate against Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D), according to all the MD polls.

      Are you really this uninformed?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:43 PM

      No compromise?

      If Bernie Sanders is telling you he will overturn Citizen United on day one, he is lying. That's not how the government works.

      Yet, if Hillary Clinton tells you it will take longer than a day and a lot more than the word of the president, you won't vote for her, even though she is telling you the truth.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1:11 PM

      Remove Citizens United?
      It was a Supreme Court decision!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous2:02 PM

      1:11 You got that right! Only a constitutional amendment will change C U nt.
      ". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires.
      Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
      ~Supreme Court Justice Stevens, January 2010"

      https://movetoamend.org

      Delete
    5. Anonymous4:49 PM

      Rep. Donna Edwards endorsed Hillary - http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/clinton-gains-support-170-african-american-women-leaders-n510846

      Delete
  25. Anonymous12:55 PM

    The only Senator Edwards is former senator John Edwards. Donna Edwards is a current congresswoman; you address her as such or Representative Edwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:15 PM

      It never ceases to amaze me what assholes people here can be to someone who makes a mistake: title, spelling, grammar. It's one of the cheapest shots in discussion to try to dismiss someone's entire argument based on a meaningless error.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:48 PM

      The commenter being criticized also thinks citizens united can be removed by the president on her or his first day in office so maybe not understanding the difference between a rep and a senator isn't just a meaningless error.

      That aside, the whole argument should be dismissed based on a misunderstanding of how the government works and trying to call out Clinton for not promising to do the impossible.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:02 PM

      3:15 - seriously? You think correcting the title of "Senator" to "Congresswoman" or "Representative" is a cheap shot? Then you're kind of an idiot. It's factual. Donna Edwards is not a current Senator. You're welcome.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous12:57 PM

    IMO, that could prove to be a direct negative effect for Clinton. IF anyone cares what the old foggies think anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1:21 PM

      I'm an old "foggie," and why I've said earlier that Hillary will welcome their support no matter what she says to the contrary.

      They're all in bed with each other. A shell game, and they could give a shit about voters or our plight in life.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous1:53 PM

      1:21

      It's not all just a shade of gray.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous2:02 PM

      We get it, 1:21. You don't trust Hillary Clinton and nothing she can ever say or do will change your mind.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5:38 PM

      Question for everyone age 50 or older. Can you tell me how any president in your lifetime actually changed your life? Changed your financial situation or benefitted you in some way?

      To me, turning 50 this year, I've not seen an impact on my personal life from any President in my lifetime, just wondering aloud if anyone else has.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous12:15 AM

      I love this topic! I hear people who have never looked for a better paying job complain they do not have more money or are "better off". In reality when the economy took a nose dive on the brink of the Great Depression I as others were told to not come to work often because business was bad. It is hard for people who did not own a home, no savings, no investments, 401K or IRA to have evidence the current President made wise decisions from expert people. I had a lot of money saved and invested which in months was half or less because of the severe recession. I am a nurse and we were hit hard because people were not getting elective surgeries.
      A coworker who was cancelled from work frequently said she did not care about financial institutions failing because she had no savings or a house. People tend to forget when the economy crashed it impacted their income due to reduced work hours.
      It seems people forget how bad off it got and do not credit the current president for reversing worse to very bad off to having full time hours again and opportunities to get a higher paying job when businesses and companies got more business.

      I had relatives in low pay restaurant jobs who were in worse financial situations when people stopped eating out. No president can get salaries raised but a wise one seeks an improved and recovered economy so we can seek better paying jobs.

      Two of my adult kids lost over 40K selling their homes. That hurt financially. However they sold low and bought low. The economy recovered and their current real estate values have gone up a lot so they recouped gain to offset losses.

      For the first time in my life small stores and shops that were in business even thirty years closed due to
      The Bush presidency. Local shopping areas had 40% vacancies. The economy recovered and my local area is restored to what it was for over thirty years.
      I have not gotten calls for many years to stay home. My paid time off is no longer for being told not to come to work. I can take vacation time!
      People are getting surgery they need not suffering in fear if they take time off they will be fired because of a near depression. Since more people now have health insurance I could work overtime also.

      My investments and 401K grew back although less than if the near depression had not struck. When the economy improved a lot I could relax and hire people to do work on my house which made them better off.

      While these few things I mentioned and more got better political opportunists like Palin told people quite the opposite.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous12:22 AM

      I also want say in my lifetime our financial situation changed due to changing jobs, willingness to work 60 hours a week to clump a corporate ladder. The wife earning some part time money , getting a degree while raising four little kids and a full time job.
      We never expected a president to do that for us. After a recession in the 80's that taught me to have no credit card debt, commit to no car payments and
      go without a lot to save money for emergencies.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous1:21 AM

      Wow, an actual smart person on this site! I read here for information about what older people think about politics and stuff, and all I've learned is that older people aren't smart either. They bristle at any criticism of their chosen candidate like it was their own child, why? I don't get it, why not discuss candidate's good and bad without name calling like schoolyard bullies? Also, isn't it obvious to anyone past 50 that all presidents are is fronts? Once they get elected they have to do what the real owners of this world want.

      Delete
    8. Anon 5:38, good question. I hear that from most of the people I know, too. For me, the only thing that really impacts me personally is the passing of the Affordable Healthcare Act - and not all in a good way, either. Good? (OK, EXCELLENT!) My daughter with DS can not be denied medical coverage. Bad? We are paying WAYYYY more for less coverage. For me, though, I consider myself fortunate that I can "dislike" that and still afford to pay it and be thankful for the good things it's done for us and many, many other people who didn't/couldn't have healthcare coverage before.

      Delete
  27. Anonymous1:39 PM

    Reince Priebus Blows It And Accidentally Admits That The Kochs Support Republicans

    RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put his foot in his mouth by admitting that the Koch brothers are only trying to appear non-partisan.

    ...RNC Chairman Reince Priebus put his foot in his mouth by admitting that the Koch brothers are only trying to appear non-partisan.

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/24/reince-priebus-blows-accidentally-admits-kochs-support-republicans.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous1:48 PM

    I think the above comment of Elizabeth Edwards was meant to be Elizabeth Warren. Just a minor bleep.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous1:50 PM

    Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
    And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
    Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
    Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike.

    — "Epistle to Dr Arbuthnot" by Alexander Pope (1688–1744)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous1:52 PM

    Hillary Clinton Tells Charles Koch To Take His Fake Endorsement And Shove It

    http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/24/hillary-clinton-tells-charles-koch-fake-endorsement-shove.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous1:54 PM

    Getting the ball rolling on overturning citizen united is feasible on day one. It was a supreme court decision after it was illegally brought before the court. It was not challenged or arqued effectively for the people. It is the WORST decision ever in usa history. It is a direct threat to our democracy and justice and elections.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous1:59 PM

    Hmmmmm.....
    A Koch brother endorsing Hillary... Hmmm... At any other time, and earlier in the campaign, this would have been her death sentence. Now, it probably simply is a revelation of the truth who and what is behind her...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:20 PM

      It's a sign she's the Demo nominee, and he's trying to hurt her national chances.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous3:49 PM

      It's not a sign of anything of the sort because he isn't endorsing her.

      Delete
  33. Think about the implications of this story. It all adds up to what Bernie supporters have been saying. If you want more of the same, with corporations controlling the country, Hillary is your girl. She is the favorite of the one percenters. The fix is in for her because she will do the bidding of the puppet masters. How many of you can't see that is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  34. emrysa8:10 PM

    yeah make no mistake gryphen, the only reason a koch thinks that clinton could be preferable to a repub is because clinton could be open to taking their money (and therefore open to their ideas/suggestions).

    yep, america wins again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous8:47 PM

      Wrong, and for so many reasons.

      Delete
    2. All he said was that it is possible that another Clinton could be in the White House.
      He never endorsed Hillary so, you berniebros can cut the crap about "the implications" this all has. The only implication is, he knows that NONE of the Republicans are worth shit.
      I'd like to see Sarahskank come out and talk crap about the Kochs, and it would be interesting to see if Trump reacts.

      Delete
  35. Anonymous8:21 PM

    The Berners are all coming back to IM. I look forward to their thoughts on Tuesday.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous9:35 PM

    HRC supports fossil fuel and fracking. She thinks more like a Republican than like a Democrat. She makes no effort to hide her influence peddling lifestyle.

    What is there for the Kochs not to like?

    A curious turn of events will be when HILLARY gets nominated at the REPUBLICAN brokered convention!


    ReplyDelete

Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.