Missy89:


Indeed.

Sure!! one love

Missy89:

Maybe they haven't proposed the bill because they are not racist like you think they are.

Bush did not lie about the Iraq war. That is just not true. There is no evidence to show that he did. This is just a liberal lie that refuses to die. All the agencies were unanimous that Iraq had WMDs. The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject. There is NO EVIDENCE that he doctored anything. If you have one show me.

Additionally, many prominent Democrats who had access to the same intelligence that George Bush did came to the same conclusion and said so publicly. If George W. Bush lied, then by default you have to also believe that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Robert Byrd, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders also lied. Some of them, like Hillary Clinton, even alleged that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.

She said

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002"

I can keep giving you names all day. We can both agree that there was an overreaction after 911 but there is no shred of evidence that he lied about it. None!

Social security needs to be abolished at the end of the day. It is not a sexy subject but it has to be done. Liberals want to prolong it buy taxing or borrowing more. Personally, I think the best idea is to guarantee the benefits for people that are 50 and above and stop taking social security taxes from people below that age bracket. I would rather keep my money and invest it. The money wont be there in few years because of the generation gap and birth rates. Liberals dont like discussing this issue but it will be a case of we told you so in few years. Most conservatives wont vote for trump. That is a fact

What evidence is there that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

Kainene77:


What evidence is there that Iraq was in possession of WMD?

Read the whole post. What evidence do you have that he lied?

Missy89:


Read the whole post. What evidence do you have that he lied?

I read the whole post and enjoyed it.

The evidence is the absence of WMD.

I remember watching Colin Powell's documentary "evidence" to the UN Security Council - and even though I was very young back in the day - I found it utterly ridiculous. I remembered to watch it again a few weeks ago, and I still find it ridiculous. Just that I can't bring myself to smile at it again because today I know and still see the results of this 'overreaction'.

Kainene77:


I read the whole post and enjoyed it.

The evidence is the absence of WMD.

I remember watching Colin Powell's documentary "evidence" to the UN Security Council - and even though I was very young back in the day - I found it utterly ridiculous. I remembered to watch it again a few weeks ago, and I still find it ridiculous. Just that I can bring myself to smile at it again because today I know and still see the results of this 'overreaction'.

No the evidence is not the absence of WMDs. You cant present that after the fact. You should give a simple reason before the event why Bush will want to go to Iraq and what lie he actually told.

It seems you are misunderstanding what i said. The overreaction after 911 was everywhere but it did not affect the decision to go into Iraq. Every US intelligence agency including the Germans, British and few other European allies actually believe Saddam had wmds. Maybe the intelligence was wrong but that doesn't mean he lied.

The only reason why France and Russia did not support the war was for economic reasons. The french and the Russians were cutting deals with Saddam to help him circumvent and get more money from the oil for food program by receiving oil coupons. Even the Russian orthodox church was in on the deals. French president Jacques Chirac was on record saying he believed Saddam had WMDs. He said :

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

There was a bi partisan investigation by the senate (headed by a democrat) to see if the bush administration pressured the intelligence community. No evidence was found.

More democrats here agreeing with the same intelligence they all saw.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk


If he did not act, the same democrats ( most of them actually believed the same intelligence at the time too) will protest that he wasn't acting on actionable intelligence

More democratic hypocrisy here about Iraq


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

Missy89:


No the evidence is not the absence of WMDs. You cant present that after the fact. You should give a simple reason before the event why Bush will want to go to Iraq and what lie he actually told.

The Bush jr administration was insisting that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD. It was his administration that presented dubious and ridiculous footage that Mickey Mouse would have difficulties believing to the UN Security Council.

This is the joke of the millennium albeit a sad one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlDSJHRVMA

Whatever their motives to lie to the world were, is secondary and speculation. What we know now is that there were no WMD.

It seems you are misunderstanding what i said. The overreaction after 911 was everywhere but it did not affect the decision to go into Iraq. Every US intelligence agency including the Germans, British and few other European allies actually believe Saddam had wmds. Maybe the intelligence was wrong but that doesn't mean he lied.

He acted as if he was sure and he could not have been. Maybe he lied to himself too but he lied.
A country was invaded under his commando and thousands of people killed leaving a BIG MESS that affects other countries more than the USA far beyond the sea. He decided to bomb a nation without the supermajority of the UN Security Council (9 of 15 votes were needed, only 4 given). And it were not only countries like China and Russia opposing the war but - and what you wrote there above is not true - Germany and France. The German government demanded that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the inspection process.

The only reason why France and Russia did not support the war was for economic reasons. The french and the Russians were cutting deals with Saddam to help him circumvent and get more money from the oil for food program by receiving oil coupons. Even the Russian orthodox church was in on the deals. French president Jacques Chirac was on record saying he believed Saddam had WMDs. He said :

“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

Where in this quote did he say that Saddam has WMD? He states that Saddam used such in the past and that evidence 'may lead to think'. PULEASE!

There was a bi partisan investigation by the senate (headed by a democrat) to see if the bush administration pressured the intelligence community. No evidence was found.

They did not even bother to argue based on serious intelligence agency research because their source of information was allegedly a guy who was doing his work from a German prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6KMYlDyWc

8:14

More democrats here agreeing with the same intelligence they all saw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQkIf he did not act, the same democrats ( most of them actually believed the same intelligence at the time too) will protest that he wasn't acting on actionable intelligence

I don't care about Democrats. Whoever American people vote for is their decision - as long as their future president does not decide to bomb other countries based on fairytales and other ulterior motifs.

Kainene77:


The Bush jr administration was insisting that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD. It was his administration that presented dubious and ridiculous footage that Mickey Mouse would have difficulties believing to the UN Security Council.

Whatever their motives to lie to the world were, is secondary and speculation. What we know now is that there were no WMD.

He acted as if he was sure and he could not have been. Maybe he lied to himself too but he lied.
A country was invaded under his commando and thousands of people killed leaving a BIG MESS that affects other countries more than the USA far beyond the sea. He decided to bomb a nation without the supermajority of the UN Security Council (9 of 15 votes were needed, only 4 given). And it were not only countries like China and Russia opposing the war but - and what you wrote there above is not true - Germany and France. The German government demanded that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the inspection process.

I don't care about Democrats. Whoever American people vote for is their decision - as long as their future president does not decide to bomb other countries based on fairytales and other ulterior motifs.

For the sake of Argument, Just tell me the lie, When the lie was told and the reason for going into Iraq. And what the Ulterior motives were

Germany's intelligence agency on Iraq

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-real-story-of-curveball-how-german-intelligence-helped-justify-the-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-542840.html

By the way, The US do not need the security council's permission to fight any war. ZERO. Did Russia ask for UN's permission to fight in Georgia and Ukraine or Did France get any to fight in Abidjan?.

Missy89:


For the sake of Argument, Just tell me the lie, When the lie was told and the reason for going into Iraq. And what the Ulterior motives were

The lie was that Saddam was in possession of WMD. Since these WMD have never been found, the allegation was not true and therefore a lie that was supported with fake evidence. It is very simple.

Germany's intelligence agency on Iraq
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-real-story-of-curveball-how-german-intelligence-helped-justify-the-us-invasion-of-iraq-a-542840.html

The introduction of this article goes as follows:

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence -- and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.

More allegations without evidence. Your choice of sources this evening reminds me of Colin Powell's legendary show before the UN Security Council.

By the way, The US do not need the security council's permission to fight any war. ZERO. Did Russia ask for UN's permission to fight in Georgia and Ukraine or Did France get any to fight in Abidjan?.

They have shown the world that they don't need any permission. We have understood this message clearly but it is quite ironic that you use Russia's wrong decisions to justify the wrong decisions made by a US government. I wonder who is leading who by example and who is actually following? Albeit, what does it matter now that we know that we have returned to pre WW II conditions, under which anarchy reigns and the international community is disregarded in the name of world power that makes full use of the law of the jungle.
Perfect chaos!

Yet you keep preaching democracy.

Donald Trump broke a record for the highest number of votes cast in a primary for any republican and the primary isn't. Over yet.

Kainene77:


The lie was that Saddam was in possession of WMD. Since these WMD have never been found, the allegation was not true and therefore a lie that was supported with fake evidence. It is very simple.



The introduction of this article goes as follows:

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence -- and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.

More allegations without evidence. Your choice of sources this evening reminds me of Colin Powell's legendary show before the UN Security Council.

So wait, If i act based on bad information, That means i am telling a lie? I am still waiting for the ulterior motives. Looks like you cant produce any.

And by the way, If you pass an information to me and i based my decision off it and you deny responsibility, does that ultimately mean that I intend to deceive and you denying responsibility negates the fact that you actually believe the information you were sharing? After all, you said Germany's intelligence did not agree with the US assessment, It turns out it did. You should read the whole page

Looks like you are finding it difficult to differentiate between a lie and bad information. Hopefully, You can tell me what the ulterior motive is.

I will make this easier. Why would Bush lie in other to invade Iraq?

According to Gallup:
43% of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable.
47% think it is morally wrong

29% believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances
50% believe it should be legal only under certain circumstances
Only 19% believe it should be illegal in all circumstances.

www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-warns-hillary-clinton-running-mate-pick-n582196

Truly,she needs a hardline Progressive,someone as popular and respected like Senator Warren but Tim Kaine has been in the gossip columns lately.

ValerianSteel:
www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/bernie-sanders-warns-hillary-clinton-running-mate-pick-n582196

Truly,she needs a hardline Progressive,someone as popular and respected like Senator Warren but Tim Kaine has been in the gossip columns lately.

A Tim Kaine pick would only reinforce the stereotype that she is in the pocket of NE Wall Street types.

A smart pick would be someone from the Midwest or the South.

Gary Johnson is now polling at 11%..
4 more % points between now and September, and he would be invited to the debates.

15% of Americans struggle to buy food within the last 12 months. Out of that number, 25% of African-Americans struggle to afford food.

CFCman:

A Tim Kaine pick would only reinforce the stereotype that she is in the pocket of NE Wall Street types.

A smart pick would be someone from the Midwest or the South.

Sherrod Brown and Tom Perez are the next considerable pick so far.

With Trump's campaign deadset on a White male candidate,picking a female like Kamala(that's if she's interested) should be a good choice as well.

ValerianSteel:
Sherrod Brown and Tom Perez are the next considerable pick so far.

With Trump's campaign deadset on a White male candidate,picking a female like Kamala(that's if she's interested) should be a good choice as well.

It will be difficult to convince Kamala to quit a California senate race, in which she is the front runner, to join Hillary as the VP.

However, if Kamala pulls out of the senate race, Loretta Sanchez would most likely win the senatorial election

Why Electing Hillary '16 is more important than Obama '08

Jon Favreau, former Obama speechwriter, says

During the 2008 campaign, I wrote plenty of less-than- complimentary words about Hillary Clinton in my role as Barack Obama’s speechwriter. Then, a few weeks after the election, I had a well-documented run-in with a piece of cardboard that bore a striking resemblance to the incoming Secretary of State. It was one of the stupider, more disrespectful mistakes I’ve made, and one that could have cost me a job if Hillary hadn’t accepted my apology, which she did with grace and humor. As a result, I had the chance to serve in the Obama administration with someone who was far different than the caricature I had helped perpetuate.

The most famous woman in the world would walk through the White House with no entourage, casually chatting up junior staffers along the way. She was by far the most prepared, impressive person at every Cabinet meeting. She worked harder and logged more miles than anyone in the administration, including the president.

And she’d spend large amounts of time and energy on things that offered no discernible benefit to her political future—saving elephants from ivory poachers, listening to the plight of female coffee farmers in Timor-Leste, defending LGBT rights in places like Uganda. Most of all—and you hear this all the time from people who’ve worked for her—Hillary Clinton is uncommonly warm and thoughtful. She surprises with birthday cakes. She calls when a grandparent passes away. She once rearranged her entire campaign schedule so a staffer could attend her daughter’s preschool graduation.

Her husband charms by talking to you; Hillary does it by listening to you—not in a head- nodding, politician way; in a real person way.

This same story has repeated itself throughout Clinton’s career: those who initially view her as distrustful and divisive from afar find her genuine and cooperative in person. It was the case with voters in New York, Republicans in the Senate, Obama people in the White House, and heads of state all over the world. There’s a reason being America’s chief diplomat was the specific job Obama asked Hillary to do—she has the perfect personality for it.

Your eyes are rolling. You don’t often see or read about this side of Hillary. You don’t doubt her fierce brilliance when she’s debating policy with Bernie Sanders. You don’t doubt her stamina or tenacity when she’s sitting through hour eleven of the Benghazi Kangaroo Court.

But when it comes to nearly everything else, Clinton can seem a little too cautious and forced—like she’s trying too hard or not at all, preferring to retreat behind the safety of boilerplate rhetoric and cheesy soundbites. It’s a tendency that can’t just be blamed on her opponents or the media, though I wonder how many of us would be so brave and open in our public personas after being subjected to 25 years of unrelenting and downright nasty criticism of what we say, what we do, and how we look....

Recently, though, there are signs that Hillary is finding this courage.

About a month ago, BuzzFeed’s Ruby Cramer asked Clinton a simple question that, for some strange reason, no reporter or staffer ever thought to press her on: Why are you doing this? What truly motivates you? Her response was not to talk about fighting for this constituency or that issue. There is no pablum about real solutions for real people with real problems, or the poll-tested garbage about coming from the middle of America with the middle class at the middle of her priorities (I can no longer remember if that’s a joke we used to make as speechwriters or an actual line.)

There is only this, from Hillary: “love and kindness.” She mentioned it for the first time after the shooting in Charleston, and then expanded on the theme a few weeks later: “I want this campaign, and eventually my administration, to be more about inspiring young people, and older ones as well, to find that niche where kindness matters, whether it’s to a friend, a neighbor, a colleague, a fellow student—whether it’s in a classroom, or in a doctor’s office, or in a business—we need to do more to help each other.” You think it might be another cynical ploy. But this turns out to be a theme that she’s repeated throughout her life.

In her announcement speech, Hillary talked about being raised to believe Methodist founder John Wesley’s admonition to “do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, for as long as you can.” In her 1969 Wellesley Commencement, she called for a “mutuality of respect.”

After working at the Children’s Defense Fund, she would often cite Marian Wright Edelman’s quote that “Service the rent we pay for living. It is the very purpose of life and not something you do in your spare time.” As first lady, Hillary spoke about the need for “a new ethos of individual responsibility,” “a great renaissance of caring in this country,” and “going back and actually living by the Golden Rule.” In the State Department, she’d talk about Alexis de Tocqueville’s “habits of the heart,” and says in Hard Chocies that “I’ve also returned again and again to this question of universality—how much we all have in common even if the circumstances of our lives may be different.”

If nothing else, you’ll notice that Hillary Clinton’s words are the very antithesis of the mean-spirited, xenophobic bile that spits from the mouth of Donald Trump. And that’s my point.

Every election is a competition between two stories about America. And Trump already knows his by heart: He is a celebrity strongman who will single-handedly save the country from an establishment that is too weak, stupid, corrupt, and politically correct to let us blame the real source of our problems—Muslims and Mexicans and Black Lives Matter protesters; the media, business, and political elites from both parties. Trump’s eventual opponent will need to tell a story about America that offers a powerful rebuke to the demagogue’s dark vision for the future.

I like Bernie Sanders. I like a lot of what he has to say, I love his idealism, and I believe deeply in his emphasis on grassroots change. My problem is not that his message is unrealistic—it’s that a campaign which is largely about Main St. vs. Wall St. economics is too narrow and divisive for the story we need to tell right now. In her campaign against Sanders, Hillary has begun to tell that broader, more inclusive story about the future.

There she is, comforting a crying child in Nevada who worries that her parents might be deported. There she is in South Carolina, with five mothers of African-American children who died of gun violence, who told Mother Jones, “She listened and followed through for us. You can’t fake that…She cares. Not only does she care about victims of gun violence but she cares about women, she cares about African Americans. She cares!” She cares. Hillary Clinton isn’t perfect. She isn’t flashy or entertaining.

She isn’t cool or hip, so please stop forcing the poor woman to learn the Dab on Ellen. As someone who’s been in politics for a few decades, she’s made plenty of mistakes, and will probably make many more.

But Hillary is also more than just a policy wonk who can’t wait to start shuffling through white papers in the Oval Office. She cares. She tries. She perseveres.

And now she has a chance to tell the story she’s always wanted about America: the story about a country that found the courage to turn away from our darkest impulses; that chose to embrace our growing diversity as a strength, not a weakness; that pushed the boundaries of opportunity outward and upward, until there are no more barriers, and no more ceilings.

At stake in this election is control of a Tea Party-run Congress, at least one Supreme Court vacancy that could tip the balance for a generation, and the very real chance that a highly unstable demagogue could become the 45th president of the United States.

So while I may not have imagined myself saying this a few years ago, I certainly believe it now: It’s far more important to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016 than it was to elect Barack Obama in 2008.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html

CFCman:

It will be difficult to convince Kamala to quit a California senate race, in which she is the front runner, to join Hillary as the VP.

However, if Kamala pulls out of the senate race, Loretta Sanchez would most likely win the senatorial election

I don't think she needs that much persuasion cause either ways a Democrat has the Senate seat.

Has anyone considered Martin O'Malley at all.

ValerianSteel:
I don't think she needs that much persuasion cause either ways a Democrat has the Senate seat.

Has anyone considered Martin O'Malley at all.

Nah... The guy is quite boring. Hillary needs someone with a bit more charisma; and her running mate should be an effective attack dog. He is not someone that would bring "fire" to the ticket.

Yeah, Dems need not fear about losing the CA senate seat to a Republican: unfortunately, that consideration knocks out Sen Elizabeth Warren from the Veep stakes because Massachusetts Republican governor would surely appoint a fellow Republican to the seat.

CFCman:

Nah... The guy is quite boring. Hillary needs someone with a bit more charisma; and her running mate should be an effective attack dog. He is not someone that would bring "fire" to the ticket.

I said the same to a friend who suggested him.She needs someone with the fire,a more than capable and effective attack dog cause conventional campaign doesn't cut it in this election.

Trump is playing the street fight,Hillary needs to do same and take him down with knives and razors.Playing it cool is a huge danger.

Safe to say her shortlist is really short.The best decision will be made hopefully.

ValerianSteel:
Safe to say her shortlist is really short.The best decision will be made hopefully.

For real. The "excitement" reason may also knock out a White, Midwestern senator in Amy Klobuchar.
It's increasingly looking like only a minority veep would gin up the Democrat/liberal base. Julian Castro would have been the obvious choice, but he is far too inexperienced for the job. And Hillary doesn't need to 'pander' to Latinos. In addition, it's highly unlikely that Castro would swing Texas to the D column.

Kamala ticks the boxes of age, experience, political leaning, and influence. Winning the California Attorney-general election twice is no joke. She is also a true San Francisco liberal, which would be a nice counter-balance to Hillary's centrist ideology.

Kamala will be 52 by Election Day, and 56 in 2020. So, in the event that Hillary declines to seek re-election (which is extremely plausible as she will be 73 in 2020), the Democrats would have a young VP to draft into that year's presidential race.

Kainene77:


The Bush jr administration was insisting that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD. It was his administration that presented dubious and ridiculous footage that Mickey Mouse would have difficulties believing to the UN Security Council.

This is the joke of the millennium albeit a sad one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErlDSJHRVMA

Whatever their motives to lie to the world were, is secondary and speculation. What we know now is that there were no WMD.



He acted as if he was sure and he could not have been. Maybe he lied to himself too but he lied.
A country was invaded under his commando and thousands of people killed leaving a BIG MESS that affects other countries more than the USA far beyond the sea. He decided to bomb a nation without the supermajority of the UN Security Council (9 of 15 votes were needed, only 4 given). And it were not only countries like China and Russia opposing the war but - and what you wrote there above is not true - Germany and France. The German government demanded that the UN inspectors should be allowed to finish the inspection process.



Where in this quote did he say that Saddam has WMD? He states that Saddam used such in the past and that evidence 'may lead to think'. PULEASE!



They did not even bother to argue based on serious intelligence agency research because their source of information was allegedly a guy who was doing his work from a German prison.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU6KMYlDyWc

8:14




I don't care about Democrats. Whoever American people vote for is their decision - as long as their future president does not decide to bomb other countries based on fairytales and other ulterior motifs.

Gbam.

CFCman:

For real. The "excitement" reason may also knock out a White, Midwestern senator in Amy Klobuchar.
It's increasingly looking like only a minority veep would gin up the Democrat/liberal base. Julian Castro would have been the obvious choice, but he is far too inexperienced for the job. And Hillary doesn't need to 'pander' to Latinos. In addition, it's highly unlikely that Castro would swing Texas to the D column.

Kamala ticks the boxes of age, experience, political leaning, and influence. Winning the California Attorney-general election twice is no joke. She is also a true San Francisco liberal, which would be a nice counter-balance to Hillary's centrist ideology.

Kamala will be 52 by Election Day, and 56 in 2020. So, in the event that Hillary declines to seek re-election (which is extremely plausible as she will be 73 in 2020), the Democrats would have a young VP to draft into that year's presidential race.

Don't you think Kamala Harris being from California is a disadvantage to her ?. California is automatically blue. The VP choice is going to be interesting. My money is on Julian Castro because of growing Latino population in Texas and some analysts are predicting Texas to turn Purple in few years.

CFCman:

For real. The "excitement" reason may also knock out a White, Midwestern senator in Amy Klobuchar.
It's increasingly looking like only a minority veep would gin up the Democrat/liberal base. Julian Castro would have been the obvious choice, but he is far too inexperienced for the job. And Hillary doesn't need to 'pander' to Latinos. In addition, it's highly unlikely that Castro would swing Texas to the D column.

Kamala ticks the boxes of age, experience, political leaning, and influence. Winning the California Attorney-general election twice is no joke. She is also a true San Francisco liberal, which would be a nice counter-balance to Hillary's centrist ideology.

Kamala will be 52 by Election Day, and 56 in 2020. So, in the event that Hillary declines to seek re-election (which is extremely plausible as she will be 73 in 2020), the Democrats would have a young VP to draft into that year's presidential race.

Finding an exciting progressive minority will be a tough search.Kamala would make a great choice seriously.

Trump has Bankrupted his own Campaign,Begs RNC for Cash.
http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/05/29/trump-bankrupted-campaign-begs-rnc-cash/

Lucasbalo:
Don't you think Kamala Harris being from California is a disadvantage to her ?. California is automatically blue. The VP choice is going to be interesting. My money is on Julian Castro because of growing Latino population in Texas and some analysts are predicting Texas to turn Purple in few years.

To be honest, both Kamala and Castro are in the same boat: they would have zero effect on the electoral outcome in their respective states.

For this election, Texas will remain red and, as you said, California will be 100% blue.

So that narrows the decision on a minority VP pick to the individual with the better electoral experience, experience running a large governmental entity, and knowledge of a broad range of issues.

Kamala Harris's California Department of Justice is the 2nd largest in the country, behind only the federal DOJ. So, no one would accuse her of lacking significant govt experience.

Another thing that could swing the choice to her is that she ain't from a political family. She is essentially a self-made politician, who is also an outsider in national politics.
That would be another balance to Hillary's political aristocracy.

ValerianSteel:
Trump has Bankrupted his own Campaign,Begs RNC for Cash.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/05/29/trump-bankrupted-campaign-begs-rnc-cash/

Trump was boasting about his self funding campaign. He's worth north of $10 Billion according to his statements. His self inflated ego is one of many things that's gonna hurt his campaign. A lot of wealthy Republicans donors are holding back these time. The Koch Brothers, Mr Singer and co are not in tune with him. Mr Ardelson of the casino fame promised him $100 million. It will be a very interesting 5 months because it will be the most expensive campaign in American history.

CFCman:

To be honest, both Kamala and Castro are in the same boat - they would zero effect on the electoral outcome in their respective states.

For this election, Texas will remain red and, as you said, California will be 100% blue.

So that narrows the decision on a minority VP pick to the individual with the better electoral experience, experience running a large governmental entity, and knowledge of a broad range of issues.

Kamala Harris's California Department of Justice is the 2nd largest in the country, behind only the federal DOJ. So, no one would accuse her of lacking significant govt experience.

Another thing that could swing the choice to her is that she ain't from a political family. She is essentially a self-made politician, who is also an outsider in national politics.
That would be another balance to Hillary's political aristocracy.

You are spot on. That's why I said her VP selection will be interesting.

Lucasbalo:
Trump was boasting about his self funding campaign. He's worth north of $10 Billion according to his statements. His self inflated ego is one of many things that's gonna hurt his campaign. A lot of wealthy Republicans donors are holding back these time. The Koch Brothers, Mr Singer and co are not in tune with him. Mr Anderson of the casino fame promised him $100 million. It will be a very interesting 5 months because it will be the most expensive campaign in American history.

Trump has got much to hide hence why he's holding back on his tax returns.Also he has a criminal case as well,Feds are investigating the fraud called Trump University and reports have shown how he has milked ten thousand from many,he has gone further to insult the mexican judge overseeing the process calling him anti-Trump for simply doing his job.

I doubt Adelson will really waste $100million on Trump.Afterall his only stakes in the election is a Presidential candidate with the right policies for Israel and many Jews are staying blue in this election,just about 10% in the homeland support Trump,Hillary remains Israel's best bet.Adelson will simply be wasting his money.