Hillary faces protests @ NH rally & keeps reporters behind a rope

[dudeabides]

Those protesters sound like Republicans unfortunately. Even as anti-Clinton Democrat, I couldn't care less about this Benghazi nonsense. Nobody who isn't insane does at this point.

Clearly, there was an intelligence failure in Libya. Four Americans were murdered, I think you'd have to be some kind of sick sociopath not to care about that. The truth is, we don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that Hillary Clinton lied about it.

Hillary Clinton is highly unqualified to be President of the United States. Be it the situation in Libya and how she handled that, her Russian reset, and her vote against funding our troops in combat while a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has consistently shown poor judgement in foreign affairs.

So a handful of Republicans protesting Clinton means her campaign is in trouble?  Some people need a reality check.

Hillary Clinton's primary campaign is not in trouble. The Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Clinton scandals, her lack of judgement in foreign affairs, and her votes against the economic interests of everyday Americans while a U.S. Senator. The media is willing to overlook these issues as well.

The choice for Republicans is going to determine if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016.

[dudeabides]

Those protesters sound like Republicans unfortunately. Even as anti-Clinton Democrat, I couldn't care less about this Benghazi nonsense. Nobody who isn't insane does at this point.

Clearly, there was an intelligence failure in Libya. Four Americans were murdered, I think you'd have to be some kind of sick sociopath not to care about that. The truth is, we don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that Hillary Clinton lied about it.

Hillary Clinton is highly unqualified to be President of the United States. Be it the situation in Libya and how she handled that, her Russian reset, and her vote against funding our troops in combat while a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has consistently shown poor judgement in foreign affairs.

So a handful of Republicans protesting Clinton means her campaign is in trouble?  Some people need a reality check.

Hillary Clinton's primary campaign is not in trouble. The Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Clinton scandals, her lack of judgement in foreign affairs, and her votes against the economic interests of everyday Americans while a U.S. Senator. The media is willing to overlook these issues as well.

The choice for Republicans is going to determine if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016.

I know you get to conveniently hide behind the veil of "we'll never know what happened!" which allows you allege bad things happened without acting saying what the bad things are. Really though, what do you imagine Clinton did? Do you think she organized those guys deaths? Do you think she wanted them to die? That's insane person talk, go to a mental institution. Or are you saying she "should have known"? I mean, I guess, but you can say the same thing about Bush and 9/11.

We'll never know what happened because Secretary Clinton has not allowed us to know what really happened. Days after the attack, she acknowledged that we didn't know what happened. Yet, she then told congress that it wouldn't make a difference what happened. Secretary Clinton's unwillingness to find out what happened either stems from laziness, or a cover-up. Either she didn't know what happened and didn't want to find out, or she did know and decided to cover it up. Either way, it shows that she does not have the judgement to lead this country because we have to learn from the past, and this instance was tragic - we lost 4 American lives at the hands of terrorists. Your Bush analogy makes absolutely no sense because we did find out what happened and the President established a commission to further research it and find answers.

[dudeabides]

We'll never know what happened because Secretary Clinton has not allowed us to know what really happened.

That's not true. GOP just keeps rejecting the conclusion because they don't like it.

Days after the attack, she acknowledged that we didn't know what happened. Yet, she then told congress that it wouldn't make a difference what happened.

How are these two statements contradicting at all? If a tree branch falls on your car in the middle of the night and breaks the windshield, you can still repair the windshield without never knowing what cause the branch to fall or investigating it further.

Secretary Clinton's unwillingness to find out what happened either stems from laziness, or a cover-up.

The GOP Congress has has been far from lazy studying Benghazi and still haven't found out anything new. The GOP Congress hasn't found a coverup either. In order to accept your premise as true, you have to call these people inept and therefore unfit to lead as well.

The reason Trey Gowdy and others have questioned what happened in Benghazi is because Secretary Clinton has not been cooperative as it relates to telling them what she knew or didn't know. Again, when pressed on the issue, she said that it wouldn't make a difference.

If she first acknowledged that she didn't know what happened and then said it didn't matter, then it sounds as if she doesn't care. Her unwillingness to give a clear answer to a simple question shows she either doesn't care or has something to hide.

Those protesters sound like Republicans unfortunately. Even as anti-Clinton Democrat, I couldn't care less about this Benghazi nonsense. Nobody who isn't insane does at this point.

Clearly, there was an intelligence failure in Libya. Four Americans were murdered, I think you'd have to be some kind of sick sociopath not to care about that. The truth is, we don't know exactly what happened, but we do know that Hillary Clinton lied about it.

Hillary Clinton is highly unqualified to be President of the United States. Be it the situation in Libya and how she handled that, her Russian reset, and her vote against funding our troops in combat while a U.S. Senator, Hillary Clinton has consistently shown poor judgement in foreign affairs.

So a handful of Republicans protesting Clinton means her campaign is in trouble?  Some people need a reality check.

Hillary Clinton's primary campaign is not in trouble. The Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Clinton scandals, her lack of judgement in foreign affairs, and her votes against the economic interests of everyday Americans while a U.S. Senator. The media is willing to overlook these issues as well.

The choice for Republicans is going to determine if Hillary Clinton wins in 2016.

I know you get to conveniently hide behind the veil of "we'll never know what happened!" which allows you allege bad things happened without acting saying what the bad things are. Really though, what do you imagine Clinton did? Do you think she organized those guys deaths? Do you think she wanted them to die? That's insane person talk, go to a mental institution. Or are you saying she "should have known"? I mean, I guess, but you can say the same thing about Bush and 9/11.

We'll never know what happened because Secretary Clinton has not allowed us to know what really happened. Days after the attack, she acknowledged that we didn't know what happened. Yet, she then told congress that it wouldn't make a difference what happened. Secretary Clinton's unwillingness to find out what happened either stems from laziness, or a cover-up. Either she didn't know what happened and didn't want to find out, or she did know and decided to cover it up. Either way, it shows that she does not have the judgement to lead this country because we have to learn from the past, and this instance was tragic - we lost 4 American lives at the hands of terrorists. Your Bush analogy makes absolutely no sense because we did find out what happened and the President established a commission to further research it and find answers.

Wow...I'm actually agreeing with dudeabides here.

Ok, your pissed 4 American's died in an Attack on building in Libya.  Where was your outrage when 2 American's, and over 70 others where killed in the Bush Administration.  Or how about when Over 220 where killed in 5 Attacks in the Clinton Administration.  People die in Attacks on diplomatic compounds.  Attacks have happened in every presidency since Johnson.  It's going to happen.  Dancing on the graves of these men for a political attack, that is what is shameful, that is what will be remembered by history, not there deaths..

Nobody is politicizing the horrible tragedy that happened in Benghazi. What Trey Gowdy and others have sought to do is get to the bottom of what happened. We have to know exactly what happened to better keep our nation and our diplomats safe and punish those who were responsible. The only people who politicized the tragedy was the Obama administration because the horrific events took place two months before a close presidential election. Any loss of innocent human life is tragic and politics is the furthest thing on the mind's of the families of the fallen and the American public.

The true disrespect of the 4 Americans who died is the Republicans now 3 going on 4 years of show trials trying to get a political conviction out of them. All four of these people knew the risks of their jobs. They took brave oaths to represent the United States in a dangerous situation and paid the price they knew they might face.  You don't go to Libya in 2012 without expecting to see some sh**t.

While we don't know the who-gives-a-sh**t facts about their killers, we do know that they were all working diligently to the end destroying classified documents all with the knowledge they were probably going to die that night. That should tell you all you need to know about the situation. These people were not lamenting failed leadership of the State Department. They were just doing their jobs.

The perhaps worst part is the parading around their emotionally distraught family members for political gains. Family members of people who to these oaths are not the same as the people who took these oaths. They never understood or accepted the risk of the situation.

Sean Smith's mother, Patricia, on the FOX News circuit is especially bad. All I needed was to watch one interview of her to know that the woman needed counseling from a mental health professional not "answers" from Hillary Clinton. Yet nobody on the right who is supposedly caring so much about Benghazi is offering that to the victims families.  What a joke.

Your completely missing the point. The disgrace is that we don't have answers not only for closure for the family and friends of the fallen, but to punish those responsible and make our nation and diplomats safer.

I get that Republicans made a political game out of Monica Lewinsky. Republicans went on a wild goose chase in 1998 and destroyed chances of medicare reform for political gain, and it just made Bill Clinton more popular. But be it Vince Foster, Bill Clinton steering business to Hillary Clinton's law firm in Arkansas, foreign campaign contributions in 1996, email-gate, or Benghazi, the main stream media and the Democratic Party have consistently given the Clinton's a free pass, it's time to hold them accountable for their corruption.

[dudeabides]

The reason Trey Gowdy and others have questioned what happened in Benghazi is because Secretary Clinton has not been cooperative as it relates to telling them what she knew or didn't know. Again, when pressed on the issue, she said that it wouldn't make a difference.

But see that's already going off the rails. Finding out what Secretary Clinton knows has nothing to do with finding out what happened. What happened = the actions of the terrorists, the actions of the dead officials, the actions of security personnel, the actions of midlevel management making decisions at each moment. Actions, actions, actions.

You want to find out what the person at the top of the State department knows either to paint her as evil or stupid. It's a completely political farce. Keep in mind the first Benghazi questions were 100% directed at Obama. It didn't become Hillary Clinton until 11/7/2012.

Nothing the GOP Congress is doing would be admissible in the court of law.

Your completely missing the point. The disgrace is that we don't have answers not only for closure for the family and friends of the fallen, but to punish those responsible and make our nation and diplomats safer.

We do have answers. We have captured suspects. We have four people who signed up for a dangerous job in a hostile situation with limited security resources took the risk and lost that bet. Their families need to understand it and move past it. The GOP isn't letting them do so by giving them false hope there is more to it. There isn't.

We need to find out what the state department knew or didn't know, and Hillary Clinton spent four years as Secretary of State. Republicans are not giving them false hope, they are trying to give America answers and to protect our nation.

[dudeabides]

If you take conspiracy theories about Benghazi or Vince Foster seriously, you're a crazy Republican hack.  You're just embarrassing yourselves.

In the end, the Republican nominee for President is going to have to oppose Hillary Clinton on the issues. There are a ton of skeletons in her closet, but the media and the Democratic Party will find excuses for the Clintons as they have for the last two decades. Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead.

But, in the end, this election is about the future of our economy and our security.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1980, record low business start-up rates, massive underemployment, the worst economic recovery since the great depression, wages barely keeping pace with inflation, and a record national debt. That's the record Hillary Clinton will run on, in addition to her own record of opposing tax cuts and voting against funding our troops in a war she voted for.

[dudeabides]

If you take conspiracy theories about Benghazi or Vince Foster seriously, you're a crazy Republican hack.  You're just embarrassing yourselves.

In the end, the Republican nominee for President is going to have to oppose Hillary Clinton on the issues. There are a ton of skeletons in her closet, but the media and the Democratic Party will find excuses for the Clintons as they have for the last two decades. Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead.

But, in the end, this election is about the future of our economy and our security.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1980, record low business start-up rates, massive underemployment, the worst economic recovery since the great depression, wages barely keeping pace with inflation, and a record national debt. That's the record Hillary Clinton will run on, in addition to her own record of opposing tax cuts and voting against funding our troops in a war she voted for.

Oh yeah, you remember the 2008 crash? You know the one that the GOP pretty much failed to prevent?

But please, run on the economy. It worked great in 2012 didn't it? Obama has got unemployment below what Mitt 47% Romney would have, he's got 18 million people with healthcare, he's got new relations with Cuba, he's saved the detriot car industry, pumped tons back into the economy through stimulus and quite frankly done an impressive job after the US was ed by 8 years with the worse President since Herbert Hoover.

You want higher wages? Support a higher minimum wage.

You want higher labor rates? Cut anti-union laws, scrap 'right to work'. Unions raise pay, conditions and economic activity.

You want higher employment? Why didn't the GOP support the stimulus act or the saving of car industry?

You want lower national debt? Maybe cut one of the 10 Super-Carriers, cut the funding to big oil, pull the troops out of Germany, reduce tax loopholes, have a higher tax rate for billionaires. You don't lower the national debt through cutting taxes

At least Obama will be able to attend the 2016 convention, unlike Bush and Cheney who were hid away like a bad smell

Millions of Americans lost their health insurance and the reason there are some who obtained it is because of the expansion of government-run health care. Millions of Americans are still having difficulty affording their insurance, an unsustainable path long tern. Obamacare has forced companies to cut hours and has therefore led to underemployment and reduced take home pay.

Obama's stimulus became a corporate welfare slush fund, this is the worst "recovery" since the great depression. Thanks to Dodd-Frank, while Wall Street is doing just fine, small businesses can't get a line of credit.

In the 1980s, the Reagan tax cuts led to a 99% increase in federal revenue. Even the Bush tax cuts led to a 44% increase in federal revenue. If you want to grow this economy, you have to substantially reduce tax rates but yes, loopholes and deductions should be closed or limited, I completely agree with you there.

[dudeabides]

If you take conspiracy theories about Benghazi or Vince Foster seriously, you're a crazy Republican hack.  You're just embarrassing yourselves.

In the end, the Republican nominee for President is going to have to oppose Hillary Clinton on the issues. There are a ton of skeletons in her closet, but the media and the Democratic Party will find excuses for the Clintons as they have for the last two decades. Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead.

But, in the end, this election is about the future of our economy and our security.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1980, record low business start-up rates, massive underemployment, the worst economic recovery since the great depression, wages barely keeping pace with inflation, and a record national debt. That's the record Hillary Clinton will run on, in addition to her own record of opposing tax cuts and voting against funding our troops in a war she voted for.

Barack Obama is a great President, who won a majority of the vote, twice.  Republicans are not going to win by running on an economic populist message, if their solutions exclusively involve giving the rich even more of a leg up.

As far as Hillary goes, you've tried to create scandals for years.  They don't turn out to be anything.  Vince Foster is someone who committed suicide.  Benghazi was a terrorist attack, those happen under every President. 

There is no doubt that Barack Obama's electoral victory in 2008 was impressive. He won re-election, but was the first incumbent who won a smaller percentage of the popular vote when seeking re-election.

President Obama's policies have failed, he's lawless, and he has not united our country. There is no doubt this President inherited an economy in chaos, nobody disputes that. However, while Wall Street might be in a recovery, Main Street is still deep in recession. Millions of Americans are unable to find full-time employment, unable to purchase food without help from the government, and small businesses are unable to expand and create new jobs. Be it Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, $80 billion in new economic regulations, new rules, or higher taxes, this President's policies have produced the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. On top of that, the President's foreign policy has appeased Iran and Cuba, and it has no moral purpose or policy objectives. He's issued executive orders and has made no effort to work with members of both parties in congress on much of anything. The Democrats love to complain that Republicans voted against the 2009 stimulus, but then when Congressman Paul Ryan proposed reforming medicare and social security, the Democrats used scare tactics to try and stop his efforts.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. More lawlessness, failed economic policies, and a foreign policy without moral purpose or policy objectives.

I know Democrats love to claim the Clinton scandals are all just made up by Republicans. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, they are correct. But, that doesn't excuse Whitewater or Chinagate, and it certainly doesn't excuse Benghazi.

[dudeabides]

If you take conspiracy theories about Benghazi or Vince Foster seriously, you're a crazy Republican hack.  You're just embarrassing yourselves.

In the end, the Republican nominee for President is going to have to oppose Hillary Clinton on the issues. There are a ton of skeletons in her closet, but the media and the Democratic Party will find excuses for the Clintons as they have for the last two decades. Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead.

But, in the end, this election is about the future of our economy and our security.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. We have the lowest labor participation rate since 1980, record low business start-up rates, massive underemployment, the worst economic recovery since the great depression, wages barely keeping pace with inflation, and a record national debt. That's the record Hillary Clinton will run on, in addition to her own record of opposing tax cuts and voting against funding our troops in a war she voted for.

Barack Obama is a great President, who won a majority of the vote, twice.  Republicans are not going to win by running on an economic populist message, if their solutions exclusively involve giving the rich even more of a leg up.

As far as Hillary goes, you've tried to create scandals for years.  They don't turn out to be anything.  Vince Foster is someone who committed suicide.  Benghazi was a terrorist attack, those happen under every President.  

There is no doubt that Barack Obama's electoral victory in 2008 was impressive. He won re-election, but was the first incumbent who won a smaller percentage of the popular vote when seeking re-election.

President Obama's policies have failed, he's lawless, and he has not united our country. There is no doubt this President inherited an economy in chaos, nobody disputes that. However, while Wall Street might be in a recovery, Main Street is still deep in recession. Millions of Americans are unable to find full-time employment, unable to purchase food without help from the government, and small businesses are unable to expand and create new jobs. Be it Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, $80 billion in new economic regulations, new rules, or higher taxes, this President's policies have produced the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. On top of that, the President's foreign policy has appeased Iran and Cuba, and it has no moral purpose or policy objectives. He's issued executive orders and has made no effort to work with members of both parties in congress on much of anything. The Democrats love to complain that Republicans voted against the 2009 stimulus, but then when Congressman Paul Ryan proposed reforming medicare and social security, the Democrats used scare tactics to try and stop his efforts.

Hillary Clinton is running for Barack Obama's third term. More lawlessness, failed economic policies, and a foreign policy without moral purpose or policy objectives.

I know Democrats love to claim the Clinton scandals are all just made up by Republicans. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, they are correct. But, that doesn't excuse Whitewater or Chinagate, and it certainly doesn't excuse Benghazi.

How do you unite America? As Mortimer says your not on the stump pal.

1 point, how has he appeased cuba? That implies that Cuba has come from a position of strength. You can't support an embargo on Cuba whilst not supporting one on Saudi Arabia.

I'm going to be controversial-the US has done more harm to the world, and it's own citizens than Cuba. Boom

Your like the worst advocate because all your problems need socialism.

You mention food stamps-the GOP want to cut them.

You mention employment-the GOP opposed saving Detroit, supports anti union action. Also YK it's not just about how many jobs, its the quality of the job.

You mention foreign policy-what's moral about maintaining an embargo on Cuba?

You mention executive orders-Every President does it

I'd like to address all of your points:

1) This is my view, based on the facts I know

2) By lifting the embargo on Cuba, we are stating that we are okay with an oppressive regime. Certain pre-conditions should have to have been met before we lift any embargoes. Human rights and extradition are the top two. This policy of appeasement won't help in the fight for human rights or advance our justice system

3) The U.S. led the liberation of Europe during WW2. We stopped North Korea from oppressing South Korea. We defended Kuwait and later Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. Be it in advancing freedom, finding cures to diseases, sending aid to the poor, or providing food to the hungry, America has made the world a better place

4) Actually, spending on food stamps doubled during the eight years of the Bush administration, in six of those eight years, we had a Republican congress. Republicans doubled funding for food stamps. So your claim has no merit based on recent history.

5) What we need is capitalism, not socialism. Look, I get that there has to be a safety net. You need short term disability, unemployment insurance, and there are folks who do require some government assistance. But only those truly in need should have access to these programs, and when we see this increase in the size of the welfare state, it represents a weakened economy.

6) Why should taxpayers be expected to bailout the City of Detroit when Detroit won't even help themselves? Has Detroit ever cracked down on crime and promoted public safety the way Rudy Giuliani did in New York City during the 1990s? No. As far as right to work, that is a tool for state's to become more competitive.

7) I think that the oppression of the Cuban people is immoral

Your right, every President does sign executive orders. Only, this one likes to implement policy through his executive orders as opposed to simply creating or repealing administrative rules or creating commissions. It's not the number of executive orders, it's their outcome and this President has used executive orders to bypass congress

[dudeabides]

Dude, I'm not going to address your Republican talking points.  You're not making any sense, you're just piling up meaningless rhetoric.  Unite the country, bipartisanship, Wall-Street/Main street, bleh.

I know Democrats love to claim the Clinton scandals are all just made up by Republicans. In the case of Monica Lewinsky, they are correct. But, that doesn't excuse Whitewater or Chinagate, and it certainly doesn't excuse Benghazi.

What did Hillary Clinton do wrong with regards to Whitewater?  The official report of the Republican witch hunt didn't find any evidence of wrongdoing on her part or President Clinton.  That's a fact.

Same with Benghazi.

The Chinese campaign finance thing never amounted to anything.  Nobody certainly ever linked Hillary Clinton to it.  These are all facts.  You can't treat someone being accused of wrongdoing as tantamount to evidence that they did something wrong.  People sling mud in politics and the Clintons have always been targets. 

First of all, as it relates to Chinagate, I didn't specifically mention Hillary by name, I said "Clinton scandals."

Secondly;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem for the left is, what I said are not "talking points." They are facts.

[dudeabides]

OK.  Your opinions which sound just like Republican talking points are facts because you said so.  Sure.

Now here is where I prove myself right and you wrong:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LA Times 12/28/14:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington Times 1/7/14:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Politifact 2/26/15 on Obama's immigration executive order

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington Post 2/7/14

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wall Street Journal 6/25/14

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Forbes 5/29/15

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[dudeabides]

Those are a bunch of news articles.  But, you can't just vomit out facts, you have to synthesize them into a coherent point which you have failed to do.  

Like, President Obama is not at fault for America's aging population or the general trend of wealth inequality.  And, I seem to remember something about the Republican party being against wealth redistribution and against immigration.  So, you're in effect saying, look at these disturbing trends, we need to exacerbate them!!!

You are 100% correct that the President is not responsible for our aging population. So, what has he done to reform social security and medicare? Other than cutting medicare by $500 billion, which Republicans opposed by the way, he's done absolutely nothing and used scare tactics to stop Congressman Paul Ryan's proposed reforms from becoming law.

Not everything can be blamed on the policies of the federal government, there is no question. We do have a large number of folks who are retiring and there is a skills gap. But, the skills gap has been a challenge for some time, and we saw an aging population prior to Barack Obama's 2009 inauguration.

Now, you have said that Republicans are against redistribution and immigration. What Republicans are against is class warfare. There is no question that income inequality has grown in recent years, in fact probably for a few decades. In my opinion, the way to create opportunity is not by bringing the rich down, it's by having rising incomes and more opportunities for everyone, redistribution simply doesn't work. But there is broad consensus between Republican and Democratic voters to stop corporate welfare, and even some of our elected officials in Washington agree we should close some or all tax loopholes and limit deductions. President Obama, on multiple occasions, said he supported lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. He never fought for it. He could have been the President who reformed our tax code to lower our tax rates while limiting deductions and closing loopholes, but he has failed to engage congress even on an issue where there is consensus.

Finally, immigration. The vast majority of Republicans love legal immigration, myself included. However, a small number of Republicans fear immigration, legal or illegal. This is what helped Pat Buchanan win a few states in 1996; there are a few Republicans who try to play on people's fears. The majority of Republicans reject the bigoted attitudes of people like Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. As far as illegal immigration is concerned, there are some in the party who believe that we should do whatever it takes to kick all the illegals out of the country, despite the fact that no one is going to deport 11 million people and that trying to do so would literally cost trillions. Others believe we should have a pathway to citizenship or legalized status. Personally, I am for a pathway to legalized status.

The point is, I think it's an over generalization to suggest that Republicans are anti-immigrant. I don't think you can categorize a group of people in such a manner. In fact, one person who was so strongly against immigration reform in 2007 was Senator Bernie Sanders.

[dudeabides]

I'd like to address all of your points:

1) This is my view, based on the facts I know

2) By lifting the embargo on Cuba, we are stating that we are okay with an oppressive regime. Certain pre-conditions should have to have been met before we lift any embargoes. Human rights and extradition are the top two. This policy of appeasement won't help in the fight for human rights or advance our justice system

3) The U.S. led the liberation of Europe during WW2. We stopped North Korea from oppressing South Korea. We defended Kuwait and later Iraqis from Saddam Hussein. Be it in advancing freedom, finding cures to diseases, sending aid to the poor, or providing food to the hungry, America has made the world a better place

4) Actually, spending on food stamps doubled during the eight years of the Bush administration, in six of those eight years, we had a Republican congress. Republicans doubled funding for food stamps. So your claim has no merit based on recent history.

5) What we need is capitalism, not socialism. Look, I get that there has to be a safety net. You need short term disability, unemployment insurance, and there are folks who do require some government assistance. But only those truly in need should have access to these programs, and when we see this increase in the size of the welfare state, it represents a weakened economy.

6) Why should taxpayers be expected to bailout the City of Detroit when Detroit won't even help themselves? Has Detroit ever cracked down on crime and promoted public safety the way Rudy Giuliani did in New York City during the 1990s? No. As far as right to work, that is a tool for state's to become more competitive.

7) I think that the oppression of the Cuban people is immoral

Your right, every President does sign executive orders. Only, this one likes to implement policy through his executive orders as opposed to simply creating or repealing administrative rules or creating commissions. It's not the number of executive orders, it's their outcome and this President has used executive orders to bypass congress

1.) What fight for human rights? The US tortures people on Cuban shores-they literally tore up the Geneva convention on human rights, and pretty much smashed any idea that the US supports human rights. Of course the US is okay with oppressive regimes- They were happy to help Iraq use chemicals weapons, remember?

2.) Please, where were the US when the bombs were falling in 1939? Or 1940? Without us socialist brits holding off the German air force and Army. If anything it was the Soviets who actually saved Europe from the Germans because even the UK/US Allied Army would have struggled against a united German Army. Anyway, your claims are completely sugarcoating History-your making the argument that because the US did 'good' (often to match geopolitical aims) Then it invalidates the bad, and trust me there was the a hell lot of bad in US foreign policy. 1953 Iran Coup where they overthrew a democratic government, Guatemala, overthrew a democratic government. Iran, supported the oppressive and brutal Shah for about 30 years, gave Saddam Hussein locations of where to aim his chemical weapons after selling him sh**t loads of Arms. You know why there's a major crisis in the Middle east-Because of the US and there cold war practice of supporting anyone who was anti-communist. I haven't even touched on the war of terror, but US foreign policy is a pet obsession of mine and quite frankly it's incorrect to claim that the US has done more good than bad. Literally for every 'good' story there's 10 absolutely awful borderline war crimes. Heck even Cuba do more for Global healthcare than the US does

3.) Yes it does, my claim has complete merit on recent history. Do some research They proposed this budget, cutting 11 million people off They also cut it by $8 million in the recent farm bill of 2014

4.) It doesn't. Your rather weak claim to support a 'safety net' is shown to be false by the fact that the GOP want to cut food stamps-something that people literally rely on. You need workfare to help people get jobs, and to subsidy the fact that wages are so low. Again why do the GOP vote against a minimum wage if they want to help people with wages?

5.) Why did the banks expect a bailout when they acted like complete c**nts for 10 years, taking risks and basically sending out loans that never should. We live in a compassionate society, and well the political factors that would have resulted from it-higher unemployment, more poverty, a weakened economy. You just scream what's wrong with the US without saying how you fix you. I support the bailout of detriot because it's real people's lives, and the fact I'm not an elitist like you clearly are.

6.) I think the oppression of the Cuban people by Batista in the 1950's was immoral, yet you seem to support it. If you were President in the 1950's would you have boycotted Cuba?

7.) Yes, that's what every single President does. It's not just Obama-heck your buddy George Bush did it to approve torture

Enhanced interrogation techniques have helped gather critical information necessary to protecting our country. The CIA has documented instances where they have literally stopped those who wish us harm. By the way, our constitution does not apply to enemy combatants.

Secondly, the United States has liberated 30 countries since we were a country. You are right in that the U.S. was reluctant to enter into the second world war, because there was great fear that it would resemble our foreign policy disaster known as the first world war. But, when we did enter, we liberated more people and prevented the spread of fascism. Has the U.S. sometimes allied with some less than desirable regimes? You bet. But, overall, our record of standing up for human rights is the best in the world.

Fidel Castro has committed crimes against humanity. He locked countless people up in political prisons. He executed thousands. So, yes, I would keep in place the embargo. As far as what I would have said in the 50s, I probably would have supported the policy of the Esienhower administration and then would have regretted that the 60s, as I'm sure Ike did.

It is true that the major safety net programs we have today were established by two Democratic Presidents - Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. However, preserving safety net programs has been something both parties have done. In 1986, President Reagan and House Speaker Tip O'Neil worked together to reform social security. In 2003, President George W. Bush and a Republican congress passed a prescription drug benefit for seniors, the largest medicare expansion since the program was created.

I find it interesting how your pointing out how Republicans in congress proposed cutting $8 million from SNAP after President Obama cut $500 billion out of medicare, and yet the Republicans are the ones dismantling the safety net. It's baloney. In fact, when Congressman Paul Ryan proposed saving medicare and social security, President Obama attacked him. Obviously, President Obama and the Democrats want these programs to force the U.S. into bankruptcy because they opposed the Ryan plan and offered no alternative. As far as the minimum wage, more than half of those earning a minimum wage are young people, they are not supporting families. Only 2.5% of our workforce earns the minimum wage, raising it will put some extra money in their pockets but would  not help higher paying jobs be created.

As far as the big banks are concerned, the issue we have right now is that community banks and by extension small businesses are unable to get a line of credit because of Dodd-Frank. Big banks have lawyers and accountants who help them get around Dodd-Frank.

The way to create jobs and grow this economy is through tax reform, repealing Obamacare and replacing it, repealing Dodd-Frank, reversing Obama's regulations, and working close the skills gap that currently hurts our ability to employ people and be competitive globally.

If Detroit implemented the broken windows theory and stop & frisk to reduce crime, if they cleaned up their streets, and if they exercised some fiscal discipline, maybe a bailout would be justified. But throwing money at a city that is unwilling to help themselves is a waste of time.

[dudeabides]

This thread does not deserve to exist.  Why is it still going?  It needs to stop.

Like, seriously. If dudeabides wants a Jeb Bush circle jerk thread, he should go make on elsewhere.

I get it. The Democrats have destroyed this economy and as Hillary Clinton runs for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush is her toughest competition. So, your upset and therefore will attack Bush supporters, that's okay, I can take the heat.

[dudeabides]

This thread does not deserve to exist.  Why is it still going?  It needs to stop.

Like, seriously. If dudeabides wants a Jeb Bush circle jerk thread, he should go make on elsewhere.

I get it. The Democrats have destroyed this economy and as Hillary Clinton runs for Barack Obama's third term, Jeb Bush is her toughest competition. So, your upset and therefore will attack Bush supporters, that's okay, I can take the heat.

No, it's not that, you just hijacked a thread about something else entirely to sing the praises of Jeb Bush. Like seriously, WTF?

This thread became a debate thread because some people have blind loyalty to the Clinton's despite their scandals and the fact that Hillary Clinton accomplished very little in the U.S. Senate and was a disaster as Secretary of State.