Mainecat

Think about what you asked?

Her biggest mistake along with voting for the Iraq invasion, accepting corporate money and being a republican

Most of the largest condos are going to foreigners. Since the increase of flights from the United Arab Emerites to Logan real estate is being snapped up. No middle class people live in Boston proper. Just the very wealthy and very poor.

The Muslim non American

He could be the VP Vince.

I dont have a problem with this yet

Boston is the same way. Many large corps are choosing to have their employees work from home to save $$ on leasing prime real estate in the larger cities like Boston and Chicago. Most of the construction is high end condos and retail. You know the 1-4 million dollar ones the liberals are buying buy saving up all the food stamps for 30+ years and finally cashing them in on penthouses, Mercedes and cases of Colt 45

Her security. The ones that make sure every diplomat has a secure communication channel. She just uses her device like any other dumb ass.

Dumb would be not knowing answers. Simple question really.

I added it I would think security would make sure it was good.

You support the TPP or just thought you would wear some letters off the keyboard?

Do you think she knows how the system works OR did she leave it up to security....you know the same security that would be protecting other top US officials? I think she just texted and didnt think about where the fuck they were going. Sanders does better than Clinton against Trump

.......Again do you think she intentionally did it?

You are aware of where Trump is getting his and what a foreign national is?

Intent to do what?

Like common sense.

As I have said before the corporate media keeps the idiot class looking at daily minuscule bullshit like the Clinton e-mails, Benghazi etc while shit like this goes on behind doors by the corporate owned congress. Its pathetic and the total sellout of America. The entire country will be like Detroit when multi national corporations get done with us. The Trans-Pacific Partnership clause everyone should oppose By Elizabeth Warren February 25, 2015 Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, represents Massachusetts in the Senate. The United States is in the final stages of negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a massive free-trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, Japan, Singapore and seven other countries. Who will benefit from the TPP? American workers? Consumers? Small businesses? Taxpayers? Or the biggest multinational corporations in the world? One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages. If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat? If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts. Why create these rigged, pseudo-courts at all? What’s so wrong with the U.S. judicial system? Nothing, actually. But after World War II, some investors worried about plunking down their money in developing countries, where the legal systems were not as dependable. They were concerned that a corporation might build a plant one day only to watch a dictator confiscate it the next. To encourage foreign investment in countries with weak legal systems, the United States and other nations began to include ISDS in trade agreements. Those justifications don’t make sense anymore, if they ever did. Countries in the TPP are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. Australia and Japan have well-developed, well-respected legal systems, and multinational corporations navigate those systems every day, but ISDS would preempt their courts too. And to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve the problem. Countries that respect property rights and the rule of law — such as the United States — should be more competitive, and if a company wants to invest in a country with a weak legal system, then it should buy political-risk insurance. The use of ISDS is on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. Recent cases include a French company that sued Egypt because Egypt raised its minimum wage, a Swedish company that sued Germany because Germany decided to phase out nuclear power after Japan’s Fukushima disaster, and a Dutch company that sued the Czech Republic because the Czechs didn’t bail out a bank that the company partially owned. U.S. corporations have also gotten in on the action: Philip Morris is trying to use ISDS to stop Uruguay from implementing new tobacco regulations intended to cut smoking rates. ISDS advocates point out that, so far, this process hasn’t harmed the United States. And our negotiators, who refuse to share the text of the TPP publicly, assure us that it will include a bigger, better version of ISDS that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. But with the number of ISDS cases exploding and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. Replacing the U.S. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative — on the assumption that nothing could possibly go wrong — seems like a really bad idea This isn’t a partisan issue. Conservatives who believe in U.S. sovereignty should be outraged that ISDS would shift power from American courts, whose authority is derived from our Constitution, to unaccountable international tribunals. Libertarians should be offended that ISDS effectively would offer a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weak legal systems. And progressives should oppose ISDS because it would allow big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules. Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html

No intent was found. Do any of you right wing idiots think she did it on purpose?

"Don't hate me because I'm more educated, intelligent and possess reasoning skills far beyond yours" Yup what a figured someone who is full of themselves..... Your MO is obvious....blame the liberals for everything.

No intent was found. Now on to Trumps foreign campaign contributions......yeah its OK to have other countries influence us.

YOUR BULLSHIT.... It's not just a theory...it's the truth so, good for you and your brain! It's long since been the Lib/Dem way to try and bring the populace back to urban inner city to help with the mess that is there. Their thinking is, if the middle and upper middle class would move back, they'd create jobs and bring more opportunities to the area. And they are correct. Except for this...nobody with money and brains wants to deal with that shit. NOBODY! Add in some of the funniest restrictions/codes/inspections/policies and a local government usually sending out a gestapo of government lackeys to enforce it all and WHAT? Fuck you and your shitty little run down, crime infested, homeless, drug addicted area full of mostly lazy, uninspired, uneducated and unwilling people you think will change if there were only better job opportunities for them. It's funny as hell what they expect when somebody tries to go in and procure an older facility or building to set up shop. IDIOCY! Dumbest post yet

Only the republicans are surprised. She will go down in history as the most vetted woman ever......from Whitewater to Benghazi to e-mails. Madam President

WOW really? I guess you have to blame them for everything. Seems to me the wealthy are developing and owning the inner cities here. But you can blame the libs.

Why?

When we get 100,000,000, that's one hundred million, willing Christians to BOND together, voice their concerns and vote, we can take back America with God's help. JEEBUS SAVES