[stupendousman]

I wonder if Bill would be shocked to learn that Hillary has been planting people in audiences in Iowa with pre-arranged questions that she has prepared answers for, during events that are supposed to be unrehearsed "town meetings"?

Scarlet and Black | Grinnell College Newspaper

Her people says it was an isolated incident, and won't happen again..

WOOPS

Another Question Planted by Team Hillary? « Cameron’s Corner « FOXNews.com

At what point is Hillary just going to admit she's a phony who has no intention of playing by the rules, since that's likely to mean she'd have to rely on her own meager skills and abilities?

I'm sure Bill is pretty ashamed by now...right?

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I wonder if Bill would be shocked to learn that Hillary has been planting people in audiences in Iowa with pre-arranged questions that she has prepared answers for, during events that are supposed to be unrehearsed "town meetings"?

Who do you think taught her that trick? Two words Bill Clinton

[tie]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm sure Bill is pretty ashamed by now...right?

Unfortunately, I think fake news conferences, fake questions, etc. are here to stay. One of the few negative parts of Bush's legacy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Unfortunately, I think fake news conferences, fake questions, etc. are here to stay. One of the few negative parts of Bush's legacy.

Bush did it so it's okay for Clinton to do it too? I think I've seen this argument somewhere before.

... and I thought y'all were into change.

[stupendousman]

Bush's legacy? Bill and Hillary did this back when Bill was in office. I seem to remember a "town hall" meeting in Ohio where someone who wasn't given questions before hand tried to ask a question and they were removed from the premises. This was around the same time that Bill was having protesters who said mean things about him thrown in jail.

Everything about Hillary is fake, so it's quite comical to try to pin her dishonesty on Bush. It would be much easier I would think, to just elect someone with a shred of credibility like Obama for the party nomination. But then you would have to step away from the Klinton Kool Aid for a minute and I understand that's a hard substance to ween yourself off of.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It would be much easier I would think, to just elect someone with a shred of credibility like Obama for the party nomination. But then you would have to step away from the Klinton Kool Aid for a minute and I understand that's a hard substance to ween yourself off of.

Unfortunately, while no one will say it I think we're dealing with a bit of a problem in the Democratic Party. An "anyone, but the black man" issue. Too bad too. I think he brings a lot to the debate, but Dems insist on putting Hillary up. She doesn't stand a chance.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfortunately, while no one will say it I think we're dealing with a bit of a problem in the Democratic Party. An "anyone, but the black man" issue. Too bad too. I think he brings a lot to the debate, but Dems insist on putting Hillary up. She doesn't stand a chance.

I disagree with Obama on most issues, but think he comes off as at the very least honorable and intelligent. In my lifetime I've voted for more democrats for office than republican, but normally lean republican for national office (I'm a hawk). I'm not a one issue voter so if the guy the republicans offer isn't compelling, I'd be willing to sit out and not vote because I think with such a close divide in Congress, it's going to be hard for ANY President to make huge changes left or right. This has been the case since 1994, and 1994 showed us what happens when Democrat presidents try to swing the country too far left. I'm pretty confident that at best he might have two years to try whatever he may, then would pay for it after the next election if he were so dumb. I don't think he's that dumb though. If he is, he'll pay big time.

On the other hand, I will make it a point to vote for WHOEVER the Republicans put up for office if Hillary is the party nominee. It doesn't matter who they are - there isn't going to be ANYONE as corrupt and phony win the nomination as Hillary. It just isn't going to happen.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Bush did it so it's okay for Clinton to do it too? I think I've seen this argument somewhere before.

... and I thought y'all were into change.

No, I was just pointing it out, since stupendousman didn't seem to realize the connection. I certainly don't support fake news conferences, fake town hall meetings, planted questions from soldiers or "reporters," or any of the other misinformation schemes that Bush and, apparently now, Clinton heavily rely on. Nor do I support H. Clinton.

See stupendousman's post immediately after yours. He is still apparently in the dark about the last seven years. Oh well, I tried.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, I was just pointing it out, since stupendousman didn't seem to realize the connection. I certainly don't support fake news conferences, fake town hall meetings, planted questions from soldiers or "reporters," or any of the other misinformation schemes that Bush and, apparently now, Clinton heavily rely on. Nor do I support H. Clinton.

What's Bush's approval rating? What office is he currently running for? Is he currently the highest polling member of his party for the nomination for President?

You're saying that even Republicans don't have that high of view of Bush and he's not running anything, and despite the YEARS AND YEARS of dishonesty of Hillary Clinton and the HYPOCRISY of Democrats over ethics that Hillary is the Democrat front runner?

Oh yeah...you've really "tried". Sorry that your efforts aren't taken more seriously.

[stupendousman]

I wonder if Bill would be "shocked" to learn that just a week or two after scolding other candidates for going negative against her (and her poll numbers drop), she (SHOCK!) starts to go negative as she and Bill ALWAYS do when they are on the ropes.

Clinton mocks Obama's childhood experience :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation

The Clinton's are the Royal Family of the negative politics monarchy. They may not have invented smearing and attacking, but they perfected the art into a classic "who me?" endeavor that attempts (mostly successfully) at criticizing their political opponents for doing EXACTLY what they do in even more worse ways. I'll never forget the years of Carville acting as an "unofficial" (cough -BS - cough) democrat consultant on all the Sunday morning shows where his only job was to smear Clinton's opponents while claiming they had no part in his efforts (pull my leg a little harder).

I see James has recently been working his way back onto the TV shows after Clinton's past few weeks of poll dropping gaffs again, this time as an independent former White House aid. Of course, Hillary needs a hit man and it's time to pull the old pro out of moth balls. He's a little dusty right now, but it shouldn't take him too long to get back to his old self and get REALLY dirty. Bush has pretty much avoided this route, to his determent, I'm afraid. He really could have used someone like James to act as paid pitbull to those who oppose him. His poll numbers likely would be a lot better now if he had.