Tuesday, May 24, 2016

As predicted Hillary Clinton officially declines invitation to Fox News debate. Because...you know...duh.

Courtesy of TPM:  

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has reportedly declined to participate in the Fox News debate that her opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has agreed to. 

"We have declined Fox News' invitation to participate in a debate in California. As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses," Clinton's spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement to Bloomberg. 

"We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands," Palmieri said in the statement.

Of course there are those who are going to argue that Hillary agreed to one more debate, but that was before she attained such an insurmountable lead against Sanders.

After all Hillary has won every debate they have had so far, and when you are in the ring and your opponent is down for the count it is unseemly to keep kicking on them.

And if the Sanders' folks thing that California is their firewall against a Clinton nomination, they might want to do the math again.

As for allegations that Clinton is too afraid to debate Sanders I direct you to Google the eleven hours of testimony during the Benghazi witch hunt.

Watch carefully and see if you can identify the moment where she was frightened.

Spoiler alert, it doesn't exist.

61 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:39 AM

    "Honestly, I mean, I just believe that this is the most important job in the world, it’s the toughest job in the world. You should be willing to campaign for every vote. You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere. I think it’s an interesting juxtaposition, where we find ourselves. And, you know, I have been willing to do all of that, during the entire process, and people have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa.”
    Hillary Clinton, 2008

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:10 AM

      Clinton has never said Sanders should drop out of the race. And, while some Clinton supporters have told him to leave, many of us agree he should stay in as long as he wants.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:21 AM

      That time when Clinton refused to drop out of the race because Obama could be assassinated

      ...Call me sentimental but I’m a sucker for anniversaries. Take, for example, May 23 2008, when then Senator Hillary Clinton was asked if she was going to drop out of the primary race, given the Senator Barack Obama’s lead in delegates. During an interview with the editorial board of the South Dakota newspaper The Argus Leader Clinton expressed frustration with the way she was being pressured to suspend her campaign. I should add that I don’t find this part of her response inappropriate:

      I don’t know I don’t know I find it curious because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it and between my opponent and his camp and some in the media, there has been this urgency to end this and you know historically that makes no sense, so I find it a bit of a mystery.

      But things took a turn for the worse when the editorial board asked, “You don’t buy the party unity argument?” to which she responded:

      I don’t, because again, I’ve been around long enough. You know my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere around the middle of June. We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. Um you know I just I don’t understand it. There’s lots of speculation about why it is.

      http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/that-time-when-clinton-refused-to-drop-out-of-the-race-because-obama-could-be-assasinated/

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:48 AM

      She did debate Bernie 9 times and then he wanted another debate so she agreed. That's 10 times she debated Bernie.
      Now she is no longer campaigning against Bernie at all, she is campaigning against your boyo tRump.

      But Bernie is like a petulant child that wants all of Hillary's energy focused on him so he is having another tantrum like many senile seniors do.



      Delete
    4. Anonymous9:53 AM

      Bernie is suing the state of CA because his peeps were too dumb to register on time, and is forcing a recount in KY just to possibly gain 1 delegate. I will be donating to his 2018 Democratic primary challenger.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous10:17 AM

      You can donate to the Democrat, but Bernie si still a registered independent in Vermont through the next cycle. He has never changed his affiliation to D.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous2:09 PM

      8:39 AM -
      Please be aware that the situation has changed since 2008. (..and not for the better.)

      Delete
  2. Anonymous8:42 AM

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-democratic-presidential-endorsement-20160426-story.html
    YES!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:43 AM

    Just putting this here to get it spread: Trump Mob Ties....worth some clicks, worth a thread, imho:

    http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/why-arent-trumps-mob-ties-bigger-story

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:06 AM

      @8:43
      Trump has mob ties and Hillary/Clinton Foundation has shit like this:
      "The Lundin Group reportedly cut a deal in 1997 with Congolese Marxist warlord Laurent Kabila, with a $50 million down payment toward $250 million they would give to the rebels in exchange for mining rights, according to according to U.N. Inspector Jason K. Stearns. Lundin eventually won majority rights to one of the country’s richest mineral veins.
      A Swedish prosecutor, mirroring the views of human rights groups, once characterized the company as filled with “opportunistic, dictator-hugging businessmen,” a description the company has vigorously denied.
      In accepting the $100 million, President Bill Clinton hailed Lundin’s contribution, saying “today’s generous support by the Lundin Group is to be applauded because it demonstrates the potential of this global initiative to capture the imagination and support of the mining sector.”

      "It wasn’t the first time Clinton consorted with mining moguls. In the waning hours of his presidency in 2001, Clinton pardoned Glencore International mining and oil magnate Marc Rich after his wife, Denise, made generous donations to the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and his Clinton Library.
      Clinton’s pardon erased a 65-count indictment against Rich for trading with Iran against the oil embargo. Rich did the Iranian oil sales while Americans were held captive in the country by the Mullahs."

      "Thanks to those reporters and others, Lundin is known in Congress as well. Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican who co-chairs the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, told TheDCNF that “areas with high conflict over minerals are breeding grounds for human rights abuses on a massive scale, and when entities like the Clintons’ Foundation accept donations from these corrupt actors, they are sanctioning the exploitation.”

      Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh reflected her government’s regret over the Swedish company in April, 2001, saying, “Lundin Oil activities are negative for Sweden.” She added, “we expect Swedish companies to respect an ethical code in line with human rights and the environment in which they operate abroad.”

      Although then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the Congo in 2009, she unexpectedly delayed implementation of a landmark “certification” program designed to assure human rights were respected by mining companies like Lundin in Africa.

      The certification process was passed under the Dodd-Frank Act. Her failure to act was criticized at the time by John Prendergast, president of “Enough.org,” a nongovernmental organization which championed the “blood minerals” legislation."
      http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/exclusive-clinton-foundation-got-100m-from-blood-minerals-firm/

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:11 AM

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:27 AM

      9:11>“Because he saw these mob guys as pathways to money, and Donald is all about money.”

      Delete
    4. Anonymous9:55 AM

      9:27 Or perhaps, "...and Donald is all about Donald and money for Donald."

      Delete
    5. Anonymous9:56 AM

      IM's resident Trump supporter has weighed in, who quotes rightwing sites against Clinton every time St. Bernie is criticized on any thread. Sanders' peeps: he's trying to win you over to Trump with rightwing-itis!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous10:22 AM

      @9:56

      9:06 here.
      I unabashedly support Bernie.Period.
      Are you questioning the statements,amounts of money,timelines in the article?
      If so,go get your info and rebut what I believe is correct info.
      I'll wait...

      Delete
    7. Anonymous11:50 AM

      I'm questioning your grasp of American punctuation conventions.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous12:00 PM

      I guess starman isn't starring his own comments anymore. This is the same guy who said he would be voting for Clinton in the GE, yet still insists on throwing mud.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous12:41 PM

      @11:50
      Quick,lookee over here!
      And make sure you correct 12:00 while you're deflecting...
      @12:00
      We aren't at the GE yet,so we'll see...
      You say mud,I say truth.
      The co-mingling of the State Dept. and Clinton Foundation stinks.
      And one way or another,when the FBI is done with the "investigation",not "security review",we may have the answers to the content of the emails that were deleted off the server in Hillary's house.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous1:46 PM

      You are extremely boring. Star man.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous3:32 PM

      You're unabashed, certainly, but your talking points and sources consistently reveal your core conservatism. I won't say "Republicanism," because that's not accurate, is it?

      Delete
    12. Anonymous7:14 PM

      @9:06 yes. The Clintons have a long record of shady activities and ethical failures. The Marc Rich pardon was one of the most blatant and outrageous quid pro quos.

      Hilary's philosophy, along with her neocon bretheren and their illegal wars, includes the "right" of the US to overthrow democratically elected foreign leaders as in Ukraine and more recently her approval of the Honduran tyranny--to the detriment of the countries involved

      Delete
  4. Anonymous9:05 AM

    In the Presidential primary, Hillary Clinton defeats Bernie Sanders 57% to 39%. The contest is unchanged from an identical SurveyUSA poll 3 weeks ago. Sanders continues to lead among the youngest voters. Clinton leads by 12 points among voters age 35 to 49, leads by 34 points among voters age 50 to 64, and leads by 45 points among voters age 65+. Clinton gets 57% of the primary vote in union households and gets 57% of the vote in non-union households. Clinton has majority support among every income group. Sanders leads by 2:1 among 1st-time primary voters.

    * Among all California voters, 48% have an extremely negative view of Donald Trump, 30% have an extremely negative view of Clinton, 13% have an extremely negative view of Sanders.
    * Among women, 52% have an extremely negative view of Trump, 27% have an extremely negative view of Clinton, 11% have an extremely negative view of Sanders.
    * Among strong Democrats, 44% have an extremely positive view of Clinton, 24% have an extremely positive view of Sanders, 2% have an extremely positive view of Trump
    * Among independents, 4% have an extremely positive view of Clinton, 20% have an extremely positive view of Sanders, 7% have an extremely positive view of Trump.
    * Among strong Democrats, 84% have an extremely negative opinion of Donald Trump.
    * Among independents, 41% have an extremely negative opinion of Donald Trump.
    * Among strong Republicans, 39% have an extremely positive opinion of Trump, compared to 4% who have an extremely positive opinion of Clinton and 11% who have an extremely positive opinion of Sanders.
    * Among independents, 7% have an extremely positive view of Trump, 41% have an extremely negative view of Trump.
    * Among moderates, 10% have an extremely negative view of Sanders, 23% have an extremely negative view of Clinton, 46% have an extremely negative view of Trump.

    Looking ahead to the 11/08/16 general election for President, Clinton carries California today 52% to 38%, keeping the Golden State’s 55 Electoral Votes pale blue. Of concern to Democrats: Clinton leads Trump today by 14 points. Barack Obama carried CA by 24 points in 2008 and by 23 points in 2012.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2016/05/23/2-weeks-till-votes-are-counted-in-ca-u-s-senate-primary-harris-clinton-well-positioned-to-defeat-sanders-in-primary-but-starts-10-p/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:44 AM

      Poll: Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders by 18 points in California

      http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_29932524/poll-hillary-clinton-leading-bernie-sanders-by-18

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:50 AM

      It’s all about California: Clinton hopes to avoid ending primary season with an epic loss.

      ...“We believe we are going to do something in this campaign that has never, ever been done in the modern history of Democratic politics,” Sanders told reporters after a rally in Los Angeles on Monday. “We will be holding rallies up and down the state, the central part of the state, that we think will bring out at least 200,000 people. We expect that roughly speaking, some 5 million people will be participating in the Democratic primary on June 7. To win that, you’re gonna need about 250 million people. And we think we stand a good chance, above and beyond everything else we’re doing, to communicate with about 10 percent of the votes that we need to win here in California.”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/its-all-about-california-clinton-hopes-to-avoid-ending-primary-season-with-an-epic-loss/2016/05/23/6972e0ba-2076-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:07 PM

      Epic loss? Really?
      What a shitty title for that article.

      Clinton is ahead in California by double digits according to the latest poll. She won't lose in California. She's working to keep her lead where it is, to get the best showing she can.

      There's no danger of an "epic loss" for Clinton.

      On the other hand, Sanders is fighting tooth an nail to prevent the only possible epic loss...his own. He needs to make it somewhat less of an epic loss.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:28 PM

      She will also win DC. It's the last primary.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous9:20 AM

    She's learned from her mistakes, which is SO much more than I can say about the other two "candidates".
    GeorgiaPeach

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:25 AM

    Asian-Americans are increasingly becoming Democrats

    Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has changed many things about the 2016 election cycle, and now he may be changing the way Asian-Americans think about voting and party identification. A new survey from several Asian-American advocacy groups found that voters in that demographic are increasingly identifying with the Democratic Party and that, regardless of their party affiliation, they do not like Trump.

    The poll, which asked 1,200 Asian-American registered voters about their political identification and voting habits, found the percentage who identify as Democrats has increased from 35 percent in 2012 to 47 percent this year.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/asian-americans-are-increasingly-becoming-democrats/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous9:33 AM

    Trump has somehow gotten more vile: It’s no wonder women don’t like him, and his new Hillary attack ad won’t help

    ...There’s something especially perverse about the “Make America Great Again” slogan at the end. Making America great apparently involves electing a renowned philanderer — an inexperienced policy neophyte and misogynistic thrice-married New York socialite with an anti-woman dossier a mile long — over a fully experienced woman, Hillary Clinton, who’s both a policy wonk and who’s never been confirmed to have cheated on her husband ever, but who’s accused by Trump of sharing responsibility for her husband’s affairs.

    No wonder women don’t like Trump, and this new video won’t help. Even still, far too many women will remain in Trump’s camp, sharing and retweeting this irrational attack ad as if it makes some sort of profound sense. This is what the GOP has become: nominating a guy who’s on his third wife against a woman who they think is blameworthy for her husband’s affairs, yet who decided to remain married to him in spite of it all. In other words, remaining married and faithful to a cheating man is shame-worthy and disqualifies her from the presidency, while divorcing two wives and marrying a third is not only completely worthy of the Oval Office, but it’s a sign of greatness.

    http://www.salon.com/2016/05/24/trump_has_somehow_gotten_more_vile_its_no_wonder_women_dont_like_him_and_his_new_hillary_attack_ad_wont_help/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:41 AM

    Bernie Sanders unveiled an expanded list of Democrats he's helping to raise funds for through his national fundraising list.

    The Vermont senator's campaign on Tuesday sent an email to his fundraising list boosting eight statehouse candidates around the country.

    The candidates are South Carolina state Rep. Justin Bamberg in South Carolina, Wisconsin state Rep. David Bowen, South Dakota House candidate Clara Hart, South Carolina state Rep. Terry Alexander, Illinois state Rep. Carol Ammons, California state Senate candidate Jane Kim, Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar, and Vermont state Rep. Chris Pearson, who's running for state Senate.

    "“The leaders we’re raising money for today are the members of Congress, senators and presidential candidates of tomorrow," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said in a statement.

    The new slate of candidates Sanders is fundraising for is in addition to four congressional candidates he's already assisting: Lucy Flores in Nevada, Pramila Jayapal in Washington, Zephyr Teachout in New York, and Tim Canova in Florida, who's challenging Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous9:50 AM

      Oh wow, a whole 8 ( eyeroll).

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:56 AM

      It's the end of fucking May. Too little, too late, too desperate.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous9:58 AM

      Wow, so by the end of May he helped 15 people with his $212 million? What a jerk.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous10:11 AM

      So now he's a Democrat? How much money has he raised for them? How many has he stood on a stage with? Sarah Palin sends out list too, and sends virtually no cash nor does she travel. This is pandering to those of us who want him to stop-see I AM helping own ticket Democrats. Yeah, OK, Bernie.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous9:47 AM

    How likely are Bernie Sanders supporters to actually vote for Donald Trump? Here are some clues.

    ...Which is why more supporters of Sanders who plan to vote for Clinton in November are doing so not because they like Clinton, but because they dislike Trump. Of those who plan to vote for Trump, they're more likely to do so because they dislike Clinton (though we're talking about a small sample of respondents here).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/24/how-likely-are-bernie-sanders-supporters-to-actually-vote-for-donald-trump-here-are-some-clues/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11:41 AM

      Sanders vs. Clinton: Electability and the Future of the Democratic Party

      ...But the ultimate issue beneath the debate about whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more likely to defeat Donald Trump goes far beyond party platforms and party process, for it is at bottom a debate about the future of the Democratic Party. The question to be resolved is whether a candidate like Sanders - someone committed to single-payer and truly universal health care, to free tuition at public colleges, to a $15 minimum wage, to breaking up the big banks and curbing the power of Wall Street, to increasing rather than merely defending Social Security benefits, to taking drastic measures to address climate change, and above all to radically curtailing the power of money in politics - is electorally viable. Based on the historic primary season of 2016, the answer is a resounding yes.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/sanders-clinton-electability_b_10106256.html

      Delete
  10. Anonymous9:54 AM

    Donald Trump’s primary success may have convinced him to make a critical error

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/23/donald-trumps-primary-success-may-have-convinced-him-to-make-a-critical-error

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:58 AM

    Conservative Heads EXPLODE After Obama Appoints Transgender Woman To Faith-Based Council (SCREENSHOTS)

    http://addictinginfo.org/2016/05/24/conservative-heads-explode-after-obama-appoints-transgender-woman-to-faith-based-council-screenshots/

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous10:09 AM

    So now Bernie is demanding a complete recount in Kentucky..I wonder who will pay for that? He's gotten as power-hungry as Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:15 PM

      Has Sanders let any loss go without complaining about how it's not fair or it was rigged or the results don't really count so they should be ignored?

      It's getting very old and off-putting.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous10:11 AM

    Is Rush Limbaugh in Trouble?

    Four years after Limbaugh called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” on air, spurring a major boycott movement, reams of advertisers still won’t touch him.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-rush-limbaugh-in-trouble-talk-radio-213914

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:15 AM

    Charlie Rose, Gail and what's her name O'Donnell finally raked Corey, campaign bully, over the coals this morning about Little Donnie not releasing his tax returns.

    They did not let up, maybe the media is finally waking up and going to stop letting Bankrupt Donnie and his campaign not answer questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:50 AM

      Trump getting beat up today by the media.
      Part 1 of Cuomo vs Cohan
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmBqhMU4JQM

      Delete
    2. Anonymous10:53 AM

      Part 2
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAkCVsO94P0

      Delete
  15. 66gardeners10:24 AM

    Bernie is out of $$. He has spent more than anyone but Jeb Bush in his campaign. Bernie is Bust.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 66gardeners10:37 AM

    The media needs to give Trump and Sanders the same scrutiny she has received over all of these years.

    Donald Trump is not a serious candidate. An America majority will see that in the end. He has not pivoted to being "presidential" because he is incapable. He has the same learning style as $arahSaysPayme.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:22 PM

      And we're gonna need to see those "missing" emails between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation also too.
      Just sayin'...

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:53 PM

      It is ok 12:22, luckily the FBI will likely get to the bottom of this.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous1:20 PM

      @12:53
      Yeah,it's taking a while considering they have 30,000+ emails to look thru that got deleted/"What, with like a cloth or something?"
      She sure is dancin'...
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2OJwsit0WY
      Don't forget that the IT guy that set up the server has been given full immunity for his testimony.He was simultaneously on the payroll of the State Dept. AND the Clinton Foundation.
      Hillary handpicked Brian Pagliano.
      And his emails are missing?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3:50 PM

      Trump is going to need some new material. The e-mails and Benghazi are old news. Nest.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous11:35 AM

    So what does our Simple Sarah have to say about this? Isn't she the big supporter of vets every chance she gets to grift off of them? How come she isn't coming to their defense? Oh, I know! It's because she's just as much of an opportunistic turd and criminal as the Donald. Though I suspect he told her to shut the fuck up, because she has. She can't risk alienating him for fear of him not giving her 'the department of stupid people' title.

    Here’s Donald Trump, Lying His Orange Face Off About Donations To Vets

    “Why should I give you records? I don’t have to give you records.”

    This week, veterans protested outside Trump Tower in Manhattan, demanding accountability from the mogul and accusing him of dishonestly hyping his charitable gesture.

    Tuesday morning, on his Instagram account, Trump deflected the criticism (onto the Clinton Foundation) and called the media “dishonest” for pursuing the story. He then restated his claim that he’d raised $6 million for vets, despite the efforts of his own campaign manager to walk that back.

    In response, Washington Post campaign reporter David Fahrenthold took to Twitter and shared an excerpt from the transcript of an interview that Post reporters conducted with Trump “earlier this month,” in which the paper’s national business reporter, Drew Harwell, repeatedly questions Trump on the veracity of his claims pertaining to these donations.

    In response, Trump basically lies himself silly.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-vets-donations_us_57448908e4b0613b512b6131?utm_hp_ref=politics

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous12:14 PM

    Glad Hillz, you don't need to.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous12:14 PM

    It’s time for Bernie Sanders to accept defeat, before he destroys his own legacy

    Sanders is at risk of damaging Hillary Clinton’s chances, so much so that he allows Donald Trump to win the presidency – and certainly more easily than The Donald deserves.

    .... Although denied the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Bernie Sanders is a man who, seemingly, never gives up. Usually an admirable quality in a politician, Mr Sanders seems to be pursuing his late-blossoming career (he is 74, and would be 83 by the end of a putative two-term presidency), perhaps a little too hard now.

    For he is at risk of damaging Hillary Clinton’s chances so badly that he allows Donald Trump to win the presidency, and certainly more easily than The Donald deserves. Mr Sanders could inadvertently achieve this do this either by simply refusing to support Mrs Clintons bid, or to do so in an obviously dog-in-the-manger fashion; or, a possibility increasingly mooted, by running himself as an independent. One wonders if Mr Sanders is so sweetly deluded that he thinks he could push his two mainstream rivals out of the way from the red-green left....

    Mr Sanders may well succeed in peeling a few alienated voters away from Donald Trump, with his similarly maverick anti-establishment appeal; but he is much more likely to damage the Democrats and allow the enviro-sceptic Mr Trump to lead the western world. It would not be a happy legacy for this happy warrior....

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/it-s-time-for-bernie-sanders-to-accept-defeat-before-he-destroys-his-own-legacy-a7046056.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous12:19 PM

    When I read this I laughed. Thank you Gryph:

    Immoral Minority:
    As for allegations that Clinton is too afraid to debate Sanders I direct you to Google the eleven hours of testimony during the Benghazi witch hunt.

    Watch carefully and see if you can identify the moment where she was frightened.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous12:24 PM

    This probably doesn't even need to be said, but just in case, let it be known that Hillary Clinton's decision to turn down a debate against Bernie Sanders ahead of the California primary is a smart one. Sanders had already agreed to what would have been, one would hope, the final Democratic debate of the election season, to take place on Fox News. Fox had issued an invitation to both candidates; Sanders jumped at the chance to once again square off against his rival.

    But Clinton simply doesn't need to debate Sanders any more. She's already made it almost mathematically impossible for him to win and a new poll puts her way ahead of the Vermont senator in the delegate rich state of California. This thing has been over for some time, but as of June 7th it will absolutely be over -- and Clinton will emerge the victor. Besides that, she's already faced down Sanders in nine separate debates so it's unlikely she'd win any new ground because of anything she or Sanders had to say in response to Fox News's moderators.

    http://thedailybanter.com/2016/05/clinton-turns-down-fox-news-debate/

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:41 PM

    Here's the part that I don't understand. Bernie admittedly does not belong to the Democrat party. He has never participated in the party's committees in which the rules for elections are established. Why is it now that he believes he has a right to change those rules. In my mind, if you want to be President of the country club, you should first me a member.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous12:47 PM

    Actually Bernie is bleeding cash, there's a lot less coming in and he has a mere $5 million in the bank, compared to Hillary who has $30 million. Sanders has some very expensive media markets coming up that he has to compete in, CA and NJ, and he's behind in both states

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anita Winecooler4:53 PM

    Isn't it way past the time to debate? I think the voters have enough to make their decision. Why wait till California and New Jersey to try to get some talking point? This reminds me of benghazi and the emails. Bernie should be happy, he can say it's rigged, he asked for debates and got no as answers. Hillary's been campaigning and barely mentions Bernie which is a huge hint at what her answer is.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous10:12 PM

    Hillary is afraid alright, but of answering questions about the FBI investigation more than of Bernie.

    Sanders has been respectful of her, and has focused the debates on issues. The journalists, however, have hammered her for answers when she's dodged their questions. THAT is what she is afraid of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:11 AM

      @10:12
      Yup.
      And the transcripts.
      She's weak.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous11:01 PM

    Glad she isn't rising to the bait. She doesn't have to prove herself at all to Trump and Sanders. She is the only one wanting to talk about the real issues. Trump wants to talk about how everybody loves him, and wants him. Etc. Etc. Sanders is angry and wants to start a revolution. Like a hippie and a blast from the pass. Hope Hilary is able to hold her ground and not rise to any of the baiting. It's gonna get worst. The boys are being mean.

    ReplyDelete

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