2 comments on “HILLARY CLINTON AND THE PANAMA PAPERS

  1. Dislike the Clintons much? Rezinate thinks Sanders is going to do “something” for American Indians. Just like Obama, Mr Black Eagle, was going to do “something” for The Indians? Sanders is not going to do anything for The Indians. First of all, he is an absolute idiot if you watch his body language. He has not been in or anywhere near his body in decades. And after that the very idea that anyone, left or right, in the Senate or the House is going to let him help The Indians or pass any of his bullshit ideas is just strange, because clearly it will never happen. Finally it looks like all those billions of dollars spent to stop HRC found a home in your head. You are such an interesting combination of courage, ideas, and batshiited craziness, sometimes all at once. I would not like to be a mirror in your house. The HRC shit here is not accurate and is pretty mean-spirited, a bit over the top. Not rational for an often intelligent person to be so delusional, clearly you are just a bit, at least, bipolar, and that’s OK. Usually I enjoy your latest postings, even when you are loosing it as you sometimes do, but these Clinton tirades are like listening to a toilet talking.

    • I dislike what the Clinton’s have stood for – which would be a
      sense of entitlement and the influence of corporate funding,
      lobbyists, the exportation of jobs via trade agreements like
      Nafta, the repeal of Glass/Steagall,and special interest groups,
      in other words establishment politics.
      All of which it seems the entire electorate would find disdainful.
      “Billions”? Can you provide any statistical data for that or is
      it your personal calculation?
      You have an issue with Sander’s body language, that somehow reminds
      me of the issue Trump had with the body language of a certain reporter.
      To say that addressing the issues Sanders does are idiotic carries
      an implication that the idea and reality of income inequality, environmental
      concerns, and wealth migrating to a miniscule percentage at the top is
      somehow acceptable and fails to resonate with you.
      If you believe what is blogged is “inaccurate” feel free to repudiate the
      points you believe are in error with facts – if you can’t then you should
      consider accepting the realities.
      I find it interesting that if you review Clinton’s talking points following
      her announced candidacy they have “evolved” to embrace more than one of
      Sander’s positions – an evolution based not personal belief but a desire
      to win.
      Statistically even the majority of Hillary’s supporters find her untrustworthy,
      statistically in the majority of polls Sanders beats Trump by a wider margin
      than Clinton – how then does that translate to her being the current “One”?
      Sanders two plus decades of elected service are characterized by being a champion
      for the disenfranchised, minorities, the working class, and people – reasonable
      to assume since all candidates and politicians should be evaluated by their record
      that as a demographic the nations would in fact benefit from a Sanders presidency.
      If not, then nothing new.
      NDN country was under the impression that Obama being a “man of color” would
      hear our voices,( I wouldn’t be surprised if you were among that number) and
      he did to a degree, but I was convinced from the get go Obama had been properly
      vetted by those behind the scenes much the same as Hillary and it would be by
      and large business as usual.
      The fact that he eagerly embraced super pacs for his own campaign was a clear
      indication, another was his appointment of Wall Streeters to various cabinet
      positions.
      Bipolar? That’s a new one – the Lone Hillary’s faithful sidekick more commonly
      referred to as her husband recently attempted to psychoanalyze Sanders – is
      that a new trend among Hillary supporters?
      As I’ve previously said, no president can single handedly bring about the
      changes needed, what they can do is raise the issues, fuel the discussion, and
      fight for what is right – they can in incremental steps begin a process to build
      upon.
      That’s what Sanders represents to me – a beginning, and I’m not willing
      to throw the towel in and offer the silence of consent or support
      a dyed in the wool corporatist establishment candidate.
      If in fact a true universal health care resulted from a Sanders presidency,
      the minimum wage were increased, access for our youth to an education not
      predicated on the ability to pay, and environmental issues were addressed
      by strenghtening regulations rather than gutting them I submit that would be
      doing something for ndns as well as the rest of the nation

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s