NYC Daily News: "Time for Hillary Clinton to Drop Out"

She was handed that senate seat as a coronation, and couldn't beat a black guy named Hussein.

Oh lord. Such incredible delusion.

Stasi is repeating the stupid line that Sanders can beat Trump and Hillary cannot.

HE HAS NOT BEEN VETTED. WHY IS THIS NEVER ADDRESSED?

NYDaily News conservative?

Bwahahahahahaha!

When I see bullshit like this, it makes me think America, a country I love dearly, deserves a President Trump. How could anyone in their right mind think Sanders would be elected against Trump. Then when Trump wins, what a shit sandwich we'll have to eat for the next 4 years.

Dropping out would be the best thing for her, actually.

No it would not r6

No, no, the Grey Lady, the condescending and self-righteous New York Times is NY's liberal paper.

Meanwhile, The New York Times has a front-page story today about Democrats' growing anxiety that Clinton is struggling to find her footing and figure out how to effectively fight back against Trump.

Bernie would beat trump, very nationwide and state wide poll shows it, just as they show Hillary will lose to Trump. Hillary is god to me morons better face it. You are not getting Hillary as president.

The Daily News is not a liberal paper, OP, you fucking idiot. And it's a opinion piece by Linda Stasi, not a news story or the paper's editorial.

[quote]HE HAS NOT BEEN VETTED. WHY IS THIS NEVER ADDRESSED?

Shouldn't that have been Hillary's #1 task? I think she's still the better candidate, but Christ she's run a horrible campaign.

The fact is Hillary is a dreadful candidate and will drag this country further down the gutter.

Dummy R13, being a "good" or "bad" candidate has absolutely nothing to do with how one will perform the job once they're in office.

[quote] being a "good" or "bad" candidate has absolutely nothing to do with how one will perform the job once they're in office.

But it has a hell of a lot to do with whether one will actually be elected to the office in the first place.

You Hillbots love her. The rest of the electorate finds her somewhere between meh and yuk. To believe that voters will "come around" as they see more of her is a dangerous delusion. I repeat because it deserves so: she's not a very attractive political figure - an uncontested Senate seat in dark blue New York, and losing to a black newcomer named Hussein as a track record, and in the latter case she had the organization stacked in her favor at the beginning.

These issues have not been addressed with Bernie:

He's a socialist. Socialism = Communism for many voters.

He went on his honeymoon to the USSR. Why? It's not like it's a great tourist attraction, or was then.

He says Cuba's health care system is an example to be held up. Well, not so much. They have severe shortages of medical supplies for one thing.

Jane's bank fraud at Burlington College that led to their demise. She faced no punishment and took a $200,000 payoff from a college that was drowning in debt, thanks to her mismanagement. Why?

Jane had the college paying her stepdaughter a huge amount of money for her students to go to the stepdaughter's woodworking school. They dropped it as soon as Jane was gone.

Jane also had "classes" sent to a resort run by a friend's son.

Burlington had a program in Cuba. Why?

Bernie Sanders won't say a bad word against Cuba. Why?

Bernie's free college doesn't add up mathematically.

The universal health care program in Vermont went under because it was totally unaffordable for the state. The governor barely won his election by a very narrow margin in a Democratic state after the healthcare debacle. Very unusual for that state. Bernie never mentions any of this.

Bernie is hated in Congress. After 25 years, he only got one Senate endorsement and about two House endorsements. Why? The consensus is he's uncooperative and hard to work with.

How will he get any bills passed that require raise taxes when he needs sixty votes to do that? Who are the sixty Congress members who will vote to raise taxes? Can they get re-elected after saying they think rich and middle class people should pay for other people's children's college? Because contrary to what Bernie says, he will have to raise taxes on the middle class. Will Republicans vote to raise taxes on the middle class? No. Will Democrats? At least some won't. Then what?

Does he understand that putting a bunch of hipsters on Mitch McConnell's lawn isn't actually going to do anything? Then what?

You are an idiot, R10. The Dem votes are still split between two candidates. There are no polls between them and Trump as individuals that hold the slightest bit of weight at this point.

Here's another great article by Linda Stasi, where she explains to us why one of the people murdered by the San Bernardino killers deserved to die. If you've forgotten, they killed 14 people.

"They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

"One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other’s religion.

"The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

"What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job."

Dropping out would be the best thing for Hillary personally.

What's he trying to hide in his taxes? Is he receiving a kickback from Cuba for the classes? Then prove it.

The deadline for him to report on his campaign funding irregularities is June 14. He's ignored three requests for information from the FEC so far. Why?

How much did Jane and family get paid from campaign funds?

Did they pay back the campaign for the Pope trip? Because that's not a campaign expense. When are they going to pay it back?

They started May with $6 million dollars. He allegedly needs to pay back $3 million of illegal contributions over the limit. Now he's attacking Hillary's character non-stop to solicit donations. Are we supposed to believe that's not a coincidence?

First, it's Linda Stasi who the only reason she has a job is because she knows how to give a blowjob. It sure ain't her quality writing.

Second, it's Hillary Clinton's SECOND campaign of her own, plus she's been through two POTUS campaigns with Bill. If she hasn't figured out how how to run a campaign by now, she doesn't need to be running for POTUS.

[quote] To believe that voters will "come around" as they see more of her is a dangerous delusion.

Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out on his show a few months ago that with most candidates, their poll numbers start low and then rise as the race goes on (and the public gets to know the candidate better). In all of Hillary's races, her poll numbers have started really high and then fallen as the race went on.

I find it hard to believe that Hillary's numbers will surge as the race goes on. Everyone already knows whether they love Hillary or hate her. The idea that there are a lot of people sitting on the fence, waiting to see how Hillary does in the fall debates against Trump, is silly The idea that the younger voters who hate Hillary now will grow to love her in a few months is equally silly. The only thing that may cause Hillary's numbers to surge is if Trump does something incredibly stupid. But Trump has already done lots of incredibly stupid things, and none of them have hurt his support, so that seems unlikely too.

The most likely scenario is that this race will basically be a dead heat all the way to Election Day.

r10, if they dropped Hillary it'd be for Biden. Sanders has made himself too much of an enemy. I personally don't mind it that's he's going all out to push Hillary and the party as far left as he can. I think it's a good thing. But you know the establishment is never going to give him the nomination now.

If she doesn't drop out I hope she strokes out.

All you Hillary haters are such bores and so incredibly wrong. Bernie will lose to her and then Trump will lose to her.

I can't wait for November and then - even better - Hillary's January Inaugural. Good times.

The Democratic Party will never be generous/stupid enough to give a non-Democrat space in their primaries ever again.

"The Democratic Party will never be generous/stupid enough to give a non-Democrat space in their primaries ever again."

Correct. And it will be known as The Sanders Effect. It's the only thing he will be remembered for.

Linda Stasi is a classic NYC boroughs Republican cunt. She's a real piece of work, and holds uniquely suburban, Italian, regressive notions on every subject.

We'll laugh about this at Hillarys inauguration

I'm confused by your commas, R29. Are you separating those for a reason? I'm just curious as to whether you mean "uniquely suburban Italian regressive notions."

The best excuse I've heard for the server, is the Clintons have been hounded forever by the Repugs, so she felt a greater desire for privacy because of it. She looked how it'd be done previously, took it a little further (server in basement) and I honestly don't think she thought it wrong or dangerous. And nothing was actually leaked from her server.

Do any normal people actually care about this server/email bullshit? It's always been a cheap hatchet job by the Rethuglicans because they can't find anything against her after all these years.

Servers, emails, stupid investigations and hearings that have cost us millions and all for what? To try to bring down the leading Democratic candidate for POTUS? Republicans are so weak and lame, why do they even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

"Rethuglicans" and "Repugs"? Are you a 6-year old child, R32/33?

R11 is actually the idiot.

The Daily News was purchased by Mort Zuckerman and has been morphing into the liberal tabloid counterpoint to Murdoch's right-wing Post.

It was the Daily News that did the Bernie interview that revealed how unsophisticated he was just before the NY primary.

They have been vociferously anti-Trump.

The Stasi column is a brilliant business move as it gets people talking about the Daily News while upping their credibility as a serious paper.

Linda Stasi is the idiot who wants to revive the military draft, including women. She's been anti-Hillary from the get go. A vile human being.

R34 must be new in town if it doesn't know that Rethuglicans and Repugs are what they're deservedly called on DL.

Only by the same poster, R37.

It's a Dem forum, it's an acknowledgement of that, plus it's an easier abbreviation. I wouldn't use Rethuglican because it's too long. I admit it's a lazy habit and I'll add more variety, because I'm hardly only one here who uses mocking terms for Repugs. And if you don't like it, no one here cares.

No, R38, R33 and R34 are different posters.

I prefer "Rethuglican" but others have their own preferences. It doesn't actually matter, right-wingers are anti-gay thugs and deserve nothing but contempt and scorn from everyone who frequents the Datalounge.

" If she hasn't figured out how how to run a campaign by now, she doesn't need to be running for POTUS."

R23, dearest, candidates do NOT RUN THEIR CAMPAIGNS. They HIRE people to manage and run their campaigns. If you haven't figured that out by now, you don't deserve to vote.

What a load of shit.

There is no scandal.

This is not the paper's editorial staff writing, this is just one columnist.

I'm hitting the ignore button for OP--another anti-Hillary shill.

In one sense, the anti-Hillary hysteria from the right wing is encouraging. They are so terrified of her that they have become completely unhinged.

[quote]dearest, candidates do NOT RUN THEIR CAMPAIGNS. They HIRE people to manage and run their campaigns. If you haven't figured that out by now, you don't deserve to vote.

We've come a long way from "The Buck Stops Here," haven't we?

Did anyone currently discussing politics on blogs, Facebook, etc, go to college and learn to write honestly and critically?

This:

This is the most important part:

Hahahahaha! That Daily News, such a kidder!

None of that stupid shit is "important" in the least, R47 / R48 - least of all the Forbes magazine welcome page.

So sick of Hillary. Just get someone else.

R50, click the link again, and you'll go to the article. First time visitors to the site get the welcome page. Close the page and click the link again.

And yeah, they're both important.

R51, why should we get someone else? Hillary has BY FAR the most votes of anyone in the primaries, either party. She has far more delegates. WAY more super-delegates, she's won more state contests (even won most of the open primaries), and has far more endorsements. She has the most experience, she's the most competent and knowledgeable, and she has the best relationships with leaders throughout the world, and the most realistic plans and policies.

You know, if a MAN had all those qualifications and all these votes, nobody -- NOBODY -- would be asking him to go away or step down.

This is pure misogynist bullshit.

I just took a shower and now I'm touching my ass and smelling the clean musk on my fingers.

As germane as most of the comments in this thread.

SO sick of Bernie and his ignorant, naive, racist & sexist bots. Ugh. Can he just go away?

I'm going to support the man primarying him in Vermont. Kick this fucker out of The Senate. His days are over. He's an asshole.

No thank you, R52, Forbes hasn't had anything relevant to say about anything since famous closet-case Malcolm died.

R56 dismisses the source because he can't argue the content.

try again:

[bold]State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her[/bold]

The report released Wednesday by the State Department Inspector General on its email records management is being reported as heavy-duty criticism of former Secretary Hillary Clinton. However, the report has more in it that vindicates Clinton than nails her.

It does not add any new serious charges or adverse facts. And, it shows she was less out of line with her predecessors, notably Colin Powell, than has been charged. Powell’s handling of his email was so similar, in fact, that when House Republicans drag this issue through hearings up to Election Day, Powell should be called as a witness – a witness for Clinton. To put it differently, she is having a double standard applied to her. Here are five key aspects of the report.

First, and foremost, it is simply not about classified email. It is about regular, ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unclassified email. Yet it is the classified email, not these messages, that are the focus of the FBI investigation of Clinton. In other words, the report does not, and cannot, talk about the most serious issues. It is about a sideshow. If you are serious about the email charges against Hillary, you should keep your powder dry until at least Clinton is interviewed by the FBI in a matter of weeks, and then until the result of that probe is released.

Moreover, it is no accident that this report does not deal with the most serious issues: The FBI expressly told the State Department IG to stay away from classified records. That would have involved the State Department IG interfering with and possibly foreshadowing the FBI criminal investigation. But, this meant the FBI left the State Department IG with a subject involving much less grounds for potential criticism of Clinton, as we see in this report.

Second, there is not that much new information about Clinton in it. Certainly, the widely-reported fact that it’s an 83-page report makes it sound like it is big. But half is appendices. Half of the rest is not about the Secretary’s emails, but about cybersecurity. Of the two-dozen pages that are even remotely about Secretaries’ emails, a lot is taken up by retracing the dreary history of records and archival policy. The remainder involves all the secretaries going back two decades – not just Clinton and Powell, who are alike, but also ones of no particular interest, like Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice, and also John Kerry. There’s just not a lot of new facts about Clinton.

Look at the press coverage. You will not find mentions of major new facts in the IG report.

Third, where the report does add to our knowledge, is about Colin Powell, who served from 2001-2005. Powell did all his email business on a private account. All of his emails on official business were apparently in a private account. It is not clear why a great deal of what is said against Clinton’s emails, could not be said against Powell’s. Moreover, Powell’s similar practices can hardly be blamed on his being a novice about security. He not only had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he had been National Security Adviser. He had jurisdiction over all the intelligence agencies. Since Powell, with unimpeachable security credentials, felt fine using private email for official business, why are we climbing all over Clinton? It is, to be blunt, a double standard.

Fourth, the big criticism in the report is regarding the failure to print and file email in a retrievable way. But as the report shows, the Office of the Secretary of State has rarely succeeded in doing that. They either always have better things to do, or it is not a high enough priority, or there are technical difficulties, or turnover. Very likely a stingy Congress does not want to hire enough personnel to have crews doing that throughout the government. In any event, they rarely get that done. Since that is a general problem, why pin it particularly on Clinton?

Fifth, to the extent that she is criticized because “she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the report is making a legal judgment that is not particularly strong. Note how she is not labeled as violating any statute, but rather, a real mouthful of mush – “the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” So we are talking about obscure, dull, bureaucratic policies. Not a criminal statute. Not even a civil statute – just the bureaucratic policies.

A report that says so little new against Clinton, amounts to a vindication.

So sick of Bernie. I know half the time it's his Alzheimer's talking, but can't it just take over so we can be done with him?

tl;dr R57.

R57, I think you may have been confused or I may have been confused or both. Perhaps we should both slow down a bit.

I thought you were attacking Hillary over these stupid emails and I'm sick to death of it. I still have no interest in anything in Forbes, although if they vindicated her that's nice.

[quote] Hillary has BY FAR the most votes of anyone in the primaries, either party. She has far more delegates. WAY more super-delegates, she's won more state contests (even won most of the open primaries), and has far more endorsements. She has the most experience, she's the most competent and knowledgeable, and she has the best relationships with leaders throughout the world, and the most realistic plans and policies.

And yet, in spite of all of that, she's only polling at 43.8% in the recent polls in a head-to-head matchup with Trump, just 1 point above Trump. For all of her knowledge, experience, and endorsements, she still can't crack 50% and is statistically tied with an orange buffoon.

Bernie just perennially looks like the grandpa that just shit himself. That and his atrocious, tacky long island accent.

Cant get past those two things.

R62, she's still being primaried, while Trump already has his post nomination bounce.

And polls this far out, before the general campaign has even begun, are useless.

After the convention, convention bounce, and Bernie supporters coming around and uniting behind the Dem nominee, it'll be much bigger.

Never mind that the electoral college is on the side of Dems.

This election year is the worst.

R17, I ask this earnestly, can you point me to sources for the facts you list? Thanks.

True. Criminals, including war criminals, like Hillary should drop out. She will make your life worse.

Yes, r31, I meant it the way you wrote it, not the way I wrote it. I couldn't figure out why it sounded disjointed, so I just gave up and hit send, lol. Not being snarky, your way is better.

R67, Hillary is not a criminal, war or otherwise.

It's such a freaking screwy idea that I absolutely cannot believe for a second that it could possibly happen, but on the other hand, I'm coming to the idea that maybe it could happen after all: Bernie as Veep.

r70, no fucking way, she needs youth on her ticket. Bernie is too damn old.

Thanks for sharing, libtard R39.

I agree with you, 71! It makes no sense whatsoever, but in this year's perverse universe, she'd attract a lot of the youth vote that way.

No, the youth will vote for her when she is the nominee. It's the independents that were never going to vote for Hillary anyway that won't. They would abandon Bernie if he were her VP.

I love how people love to call her competent. Everything she has ever touched, personal or professional, is an utter disaster. Except that one thing we better not mention.

Untrue, R75.

The minute that someone says they "hate" Hillary Clinton, I know that he/she is a total fucking moron.

Funny, R77, I know they're a total fucking moron when l hear someone says they "love" Hillary Clinton.

R77 is right.

R78 is wrong as usual.

[quote] Everything she has ever touched, personal or professional, is an utter disaster. Except that one thing we better not mention.

Is it the same thing I touched?

I think Liz Warren would be a better Veep for Hills than Bernie. She'd bring in the same crowd, and she's 20 years younger than Bernie and doesn't have all the negatives he has now.

But a hot younger Latino would be great too.

An old white man - even Bernie - not so sure about that.

[quote]Hillary has BY FAR the most votes of anyone in the primaries, either party. She amassed those votes in 5-person field, that quickly became a 3-way contest and a 2-way one almost immediately thereafter. Trump, OTOH, was originally fighting against 19 other candidates, and had to face 3- and 4-way vote splitting for far longer. So that's a nonsense argument, statistically.

[quote] She has far more delegates. She's in a party that HAS far more delegates than the Republicans do. No surprise she's won more delegates than him, and she has a far smaller advantage against Sanders. She currently has 270 more pledged delegates than Sanders, out 3270 elected thus far, an advantage of 8.25%

There still remain 781 delegates to be elected, almost triple Clinton's current margin.

[quote] WAY more super-delegates, Well, she has a reason for "having" more super-delegates than Trump…the Rs don't HAVE super-delegates. As for "having" more Super-dupers than Sanders, she doesn't "have" a single fucking one; supers are by definition uncommitted. All she "has" is the expressed preferences of many super-delegates, which are not binding in any way, and in most cases were given before the race even began. Certainly before Sanders demonstrated he was the superior candidate with Independents and crossover Republicans, and likely with Democrats as well. And before the "vetted" Clinton was found to have violated the State Department's own rules, never mind FOIA and general government security provisions.

(As for those who claim Colin Powell did the same thing [not true]…well, Colin Powell isn't running for anything, last I checked. So that's a useless diversion.)

Damn, I really fucked up that quote function, didn't I? Sorry about that.

Why do Hillbots write all these TL;DR posts?

Just sum up what you want to say in a few sentences

Just saw a Clinton campaign ad that had Morgan Freeman doing narration (because he's way more popular than her, perhaps?), and this is how it begins:

"Her life's work has been about breaking barriers…and so will her presidency."

Um, did you forget a verb there, Morg? Millions of dollars (I assume) spent on buying airtime for this ad, and they can't even master basic grammar. Pathetic.

I grant you, the GoldmanSachs Money Faucet will probably be able to replace the wasted bribe money easily enough, but I'm still embarrassed that Lloyd Blankfein had to waste his hard-stolen dough on such illiteracy.

Delegates in the Democratic Party are allocated proportionally. Which means if the election results are 50/50, they're allocated evenly. The greater the win, the more delegates the winner gets than the loser. So close races don't help Bernie close the gap, as we've seen time and time again, where he wins by a tiny margin, and they split the delegates evenly, or maybe he gets one or two more (which doesn't close the 300 delegate gap at all).

SO yeah, there may be many hundreds more delegates still unallocated ... but he can't win by great enough margins (according to historic performance or by current polling) for that to matter. Hillary will be the Nominee. That is virtually mathematically assured.

Clinging on to non-existent hope is a sign of desperation.

r72 = Proud Trump University graduate

after she wins CA and NJ next week it will be closer to being POTUS

[QUOTE]Why do Hillbots write all these TL;DR posts?

Because they're paid posters from Hillary's PAC and have to follow a script of things they're suppose to say to "correct" so-called anti-Hillary posts. Its all cut and paste.

Well, as a person who's not paid by anybody, I have to dispute that, R89. The reason I sometimes write long posts refuting something that's said about Hillary is that Bernbots just throw out posts full of unsubstantiated, or in some cases completely false, claims as fact.

Some less informed, or younger posters, read some of these wild claims, like "Hillary murdered Vince Foster! Hillary started the Iraq war all by herself and neither George W. Bush or Congress had anything to do with it! Bill Clinton raped dozens of women whose characters are unimpeachable but for some reason he's walking free and there's no reason for it, ex-Presidents just get to rape anybody they choose and the police never arrest them!" If you weren't around then, you have no idea what the context is or why people are saying this.

I've seen too many millennials just blindly repeat this stuff, unaware that this stuff was investigated by Republican-led, extremely hostile Congressional investigations that were broadcast on television every single day until the end. They couldn't find anything. Vince Foster's family has recently published an article asking Trump to stop with the murder accusations because it's extremely painful for them. Trump should have the sensitivity to know that already, but of course he doesn't. Foster was very depressed and hated Washington and felt overwhelmed and powerless. He killed himself. That's a tragedy, but it was thoroughly investigated. There's no point bringing it up again.

The only way to refute claims like that is to refute them. Not everything can be said in 140 characters or less, especially if it's about legal investigations and not Kardashians.

If you Trumpeters and Bernbots would quit lying, my posts would be a lot shorter.

R75/R78, do you think you're swaying anyone with your stupid comments? Think again.

If she picks Pocahantas as her VP she's done.

she is not picking another woman, she will pick a young man

Stasi is an unhinged SJW cunt. She wrote that one of the San Bernardino terrorist attack victims basically deserved to die because he was a conservative and NRA suooorter.

OP, quoting her says you have Bernie's face tattooed on your penis.

Anyone see what HuffPo accidentally led with today?

[quote]If she picks Pocahantas as her VP she's done.

Pocahontas died hundreds of years ago, so don't worry.

So is that what a Trump presidency would be, four years of calling things we don't like bad names? Presidential!

Linda Stasi appears to be Maureen Dowd wannabe.

GOP has facilitated Bernie to weaken HRC. The media has not vetted Sanders and has not pressed him with details on his views.

Trump would flatten Sanders on the Commie angle.

With a name like Stasi, it's got to be a hit job

It's actually surprising HOW MANY people like R10 were correct and how much the Hillary fans on DL ignored them and ridiculed them in 2016.

Hillary needs to crawl into a cave and never be seen or heard from again. Blame everyone else in the world, but she gave us Trump by being such a horrible candidate. Did she forget the EC and the swing states existed? Did she think her filthy rich celeb friends in NY and CA would be all she needed to win? She learned NOTHING from her two losses. She is still blaming everyone but herself for what happened.

Yep, R10 was the lone voice of reason.

[quote] We'll laugh about this at Hillarys inauguration

oh yes indeed

MAKE IT STOP