Democratic Party Convention General Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
New Bedford officials angry at Hill

"Bedford leaders are livid at Hillary Clinton’s depiction of the Whaling City as a place where handicapped children were abandoned at home because the schools lacked accommodations for youngsters with special needs.

“It’s not true,” former Mayor Jack Markey told the Herald yesterday. “I’m even a Democrat, but the truth is the truth."

bostonherald.com/news/local_politics/2016/07/new_bedford_officials_angry_at_hill
Click to expand...
I haven’t read the article yet but I know Hillary has a habit of “misspeaking.” Either she thinks her misstatements will go unnoticed or she doesn’t believe it matters much. Incredible!
 
Thorolfr said:
I doubt that she’s done it privately, either. It doesn’t seem like something she would do. Despite all the Hillary bashing, she did a lot of things as a lawyer to help poor people, children, black people, etc. I don’t think she would be prejudiced against people because of their religion.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean that child rapist she got off?

Perpetual poverty for inner city black people?

Or getting fired for stealing documents from the Watergate investigation?
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Oh, you mean that child rapist she got off?

Perpetual poverty for inner city black people?

Or getting fired for stealing documents from the Watergate investigation?
Click to expand...
I see there is a new “old” talking point floating around.

The problem is that Hillary Clinton remained on the Watergate Committee until Richard Nixon resigned and the Committee was shut down. Hillary Clinton did not work directly for Jerry Zeifman, and so he had no authority to fire her. There is no evidence she was fired, so this story is false.

urbanmyths.com/urban-myths/politics/fact-or-fiction-was-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation/
 
Not fired, but…

truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/
Jerry Zeifman said he supervised Hillary Rodham Clinton as she worked on the team that worked on the Watergate impeachment inquiry, and that during the investigation Hillary Clinton had “…engaged in a variety of self-serving, unethical practices in violation of House rules.”
Click to expand...
Specifically, Jerry Zeifman said Hillary Rodham Clinton and others wanted Richard Nixon to remain in office so Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy would have a better chance of being elected president. Zeifman said a young lawyer who shared an office with Clinton came to him in August of 1974 to apologize that he and Clinton had lied to him. The lawyer, John Labovitz, is quoted as saying that he was dismayed with “**…her erroneous legal opinions and efforts to deny Nixon representation by counsel **— as well as an unwillingness to investigate Nixon.”
Click to expand...
Jerry Zeifman also said that Hillary Rodham Clinton regularly consulted with Ted Kennedy’s chief political strategist, which was a** violation of House rules**. Zeifman said in addition to helping Ted Kennedy win the presidency, Democrats also didn’t want Nixon to face an impeachment trial because they feared he might bring up abuses of office by President John Kennedy as part of his defense.
Click to expand...
But while Jerry Zeifman has been consistent in his criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s work on the Watergate investigation, circumstances surrounding her termination are less clear. In a 1999 interview with the Scripps Howard News Service, Zeifman said he didn’t have the power to fire Clinton, or else he would have:/quote]
Click to expand...
 
Barack Obama will be the only President in US history to never have a year Of 3% GDP growth.
 
7_Sorrows said:
it surprises me the Bernie supporters who have so quickly forgotten how Bernie was burned by Hillary and the DNC! Pretty sad.
Click to expand...
I haven’t forgotten that Hillary won 3.7 million more votes than Bernie and 55% of the vote.
 
7_Sorrows said:
many will be supporting Jill Stein. They won’t be voting for Hillary.

More people watched Donald’s speech than Hillary’s.
Click to expand...
As Good Tidings said, so what.

I won’t be voting for Jill Stein. Of course some Republicans won’t be voting for Trump. You never get 100%.

And more people watched the Democratic convention overall. I watched both Trump’s and Hillary’s speeches but there are people right here on CAF who say they only watched Trump but not Hillary. That may have played a part in why Trump’s was watched by more. His opponents were willing to watch both speeches.
 
YADA said:
PLEASE - Learn to read … I never said I was worried … I aid the reason why we have a Constitutional - individual Right is precisely because our government is of and by the consent of the governed - which the citizens fought for - by rising up against the government - that is why it is referred to as a REVOLUTION …

you and Tom both need to read and study history … and stop reading into a post what you want to see instead of what is actually written

No one answered the question about the irony that our government spends money overseas arming citizens precisely so they can rise up and over throw their governments while doing everything they can to disarm its own citizens - in direct violation of our constitutional rights …

Let me be clear - I am not a black helicopter person … I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution …Also - I do not fear my employer - I work for the federal government [that was the last time I took the Oath - the first time was when I enlisted]. My lack of fear does not mean we should relinquish our rights.

Abortion kills thousands of innocent babies each year … disarming law abiding citizens does not change that … nor do the shear numbers of lives lost equate …

And Mr Kaine has aligned himself with those who dispose of innocent life - even at tax payer expense now … He chose death rather than life.
Click to expand...
Right. You said “we” have the right because citizens rose up against their government. Again, if not you, hopefully other citizens aren’t so naive to expect if they were to rise up again against their government in the 21st century that they could prevail against the types of weaponry at the disposal of the US government today. Not unless the citizens arm themselves with tanks and nukes and all the other munitions the US government has at its disposal. And surely no one thinks citizens should avail themselves of such weaponry under the 2nd amendment.

No one is trying to disarm our citizens. Maybe it is you who needs to stop reading into things.

And no, Mr Kaine accepts his church’s teaching. He simply does not believe it is the US government’s place to force every citizen to abide by Catholic doctrine. You fought for freedom of and from religion too.
 
dmelosi said:
That could not be further from the truth.
Click to expand...
No, it is exactly true. If there were an armed uprising against the government, it would be the job of the cops and the military to defend that government. So that is who your guns would be aimed at. And if you are thinking that all the police and soldiers would join your revolt, then you would not need to add your pea shooter to the fray, because the professionals would be doing the job for you, and much more effectively.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
No, it is exactly true. If there were an armed uprising against the government, it would be the job of the cops and the military to defend that government. So that is who your guns would be aimed at. And if you are thinking that all the police and soldiers would join your revolt, then you would not need to add your pea shooter to the fray, because the professionals would be doing the job for you, and much more effectively.
Click to expand...
He said the intention of a revolt is to kill cops.

Your rhetoric is very similar to the mental twisting that democrat Catholics say to justify how they assist in making the killing of the most innocent acceptable.
 
Sy_Noe said:
And no, Mr Kaine accepts his church’s teaching. He simply does not believe it is the US government’s place to force every citizen to abide by Catholic doctrine. You fought for freedom of and from religion too.
Click to expand...
So - laws against theft, usury, rape and murder should not be passed … - freedom of religion does not mean that depriving individuals of their life should be condoned in law … freedom of religion does not mean we should not protect innocent life.

Abortion is the deliberate killing of a person - taking their life from them - the life of a child … that is not a religious issue it is not a Catholic issue - that is not Catholic Doctrine - that is a matter of science … that is the reality of abortion - a fact.

and Mr Kaine does not accept his Church’s teaching - on the issue … he has abandoned that in every way except ‘word’ … Abortion is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil … to not actively seek to end that evil and to actively work to preserve that evil is against the teaching of the Church.
 
dmelosi said:
He said the intention of a revolt is to kill cops…
Click to expand...
Please get his words right. He said nothing about intention. He said talking about an armed revolt necessarily means talking about killing cops. It is just true. No rhetoric or mental gymnastics required.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Please get his words right. He said nothing about intention. He said talking about an armed revolt necessarily means talking about killing cops. It is just true. No rhetoric or mental gymnastics required.
Click to expand...
He said exactly that.

How in the world do those democrat catholics keep avoiding talking about how THEIR party they are married to keep excusing their party of killing so many of the most innocent. Why can’t you explain how you promote that killing and why?

It is a human being that you are justifying being killed. Why do you keep trying to deflect on that?
 
dmelosi said:
He said exactly that.

How in the world do those democrat catholics keep avoiding talking about how THEIR party they are married to keep excusing their party of killing so many of the most innocent. Why can’t you explain how you promote that killing and why?

It is a human being that you are justifying being killed. Why do you keep trying to deflect on that?
Click to expand...
Probably because not every conversation (from guns to the weather to the 4th of July) has to come back to abortion.
 
gracepoole said:
Probably because not every conversation (from guns to the weather to the 4th of July) has to come back to abortion.
Click to expand...
It is very telling to me how there has not been one of those catholics married to their party have not said one, not even one thing about their party being the party of death.
 
dmelosi said:
It is very telling to me how there has not been one of those catholics married to their party have not said one, not even one thing about their party being the party of death.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone discuss abortion in the midst of a conversation about guns?
 
gracepoole said:
Probably because not every conversation (from guns to the weather to the 4th of July) has to come back to abortion.
Click to expand...
Well, it is a Catholic Forum and many members are practicing Catholics, so one might expect abortion to be a top priority. But I agree with you that there are other subjects important to Democrats as well as Republicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top