First off, it's from employees who are free to contribute to whomever they wish. Second, they contributed to Bernie although in smaller numbers. Third, what they have given Hillary is 2% of the industry's total contribution. Fourth unless you live in a teepee, you are part of the problem too.
And last, I would have expected you to have renounced your 10C membership by now since EV is no better than Clooney. Your morals aren't relative, are they?
IF national security was compromised because of her want to skirt government transparency rules then she will be disqualified for the presidency and will likely be on her way to prison.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
I think a lot of people overestimate the amount people care about Red baiting nowadays. I am 30, I have never met anyone my age of younger who bought into McCarthyism. We tend to think of people who use McCarthyisms as weirdo extremists. If you say commie, pinko, or you can't say socialist without a snarl, anybody under 35 is going to laugh at you like your the cover of a Donna Summers album.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
I think a lot of people overestimate the amount people care about Red baiting nowadays. I am 30, I have never met anyone my age of younger who bought into McCarthyism. We tend to think of people who use McCarthyisms as weirdo extremists. If you say commie, pinko, or you can't say socialist without a snarl, anybody under 35 is going to laugh at you like your the cover of a Donna Summers album.
You're right, but for everyone over 40 it was ingrained. And remember, the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. He will get clobbered with ads on the Sandanistas, compliments about Castro, his honeymoon to the Soviet Union, etc. Will it work for everyone? Of course not. Will it work on moderates or true swing voters? Maybe. But you can be sure it will happen.
It is important to note that McCarythism was outcast as fringe in the 50's when his credibility was destroyed. But anti-Red stuff continued well into the 90's.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
My point is that the Sanders numbers will tighten up since he hasn't been defined yet. Remember that turnout for the primaries has been quite small. I think between the two parties, it's 28% on average (17% (R), 11% (D)) For the general it should be between 55-63% of EVs. Most normal people just aren't paying that close of attention yet.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
Election is many months away and the attacks on Sanders have yet to begin.
• Here is Hillary Clinton explicitly saying she is against a $15 federal minimum wage just a few months ago: http://ow.ly/2bwTw5
• Here is HRC yesterday celebrating with Gov. Cuomo New York's $15 victory (with strings & betrayals attached): http://ow.ly/2bwTw6
New York knows who our real champion has been, and New York will let Hillary know on April 19th.
Use your brain for just a minute. She supports a $12 Federal (read NATIONWIDE where costs of living are DIFFERENT) and for states to raise the number to what is a fair wage for their state. Just can't go below $12. If you asked her if she supported CA raising their number to 15 or Seattle, I'm fairly sure she would say 'of course'. She's also in favor of Iowa, AR, KY, TN and states that have lower costs of living not be burdened with a wage that will cost jobs. Sorry that nuance and context is part of the real world, but it is. Obama supports $10 last time I checked.
thumped again. Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.
You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
thumped again. Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.
You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
Just to be clear....
Jeff Weaver is the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign.
Tad Devine is senior campaign strategist. And every presidential campaign he has worked on has lost!
thumped again. Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.
You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
Just to be clear....
Jeff Weaver is the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign.
Tad Devine is senior campaign strategist. And every presidential campaign he has worked on has lost!
You are right on both counts. Or to be more accurate, he's lost every NATIONAL campaign in the US. When he represented scumbags like Yanukoyvch in the Ukraine, that went better.
I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
Election is many months away and the attacks on Sanders have yet to begin.
LOL for what? The "socialist" attacks?
You're forgetting that if Sanders is nominated he'll also be in the spotlight to challenge those claims.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Can you summarize for me, how this will leave a mark? I read it and all I see is that the Podesta group worked for the Russian Sberbank (largest bank in Russia) as a lobbyist, who are connected to the Panama Papers. And the CEO of Podesta is brother to John Podesta, who worked for Bill Clinton and Obama. That's it? Did I miss something else when I read it?
It's no different than tying Devine to Putin through Yakunoyvch.
Let's take a different angle. You remember the GM ignition switch scandal, right? 124 deaths were linked to it. Pretty bad. Way worse than this. Now is every employee of GM a piece of shit because of that? What about all the companies that do business with GM (their dealers, the truck drivers, their outside counsel, their lobbyists, their supply chain who provide windows, radios (Bose, for example), etc. Are they all directly implicated?
Can you summarize for me, how this will leave a mark? I read it and all I see is that the Podesta group worked for the Russian Sberbank (largest bank in Russia) as a lobbyist, who are connected to the Panama Papers. And the CEO of Podesta is brother to John Podesta, who worked for Bill Clinton and Obama. That's it? Did I miss something else when I read it?
It's no different than tying Devine to Putin through Yakunoyvch.
To quote the article:
"It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November."
All of this while she was serving as Secretary of State. Now does this prove anything nefarious? No but between this and the money Hillary and Bill have been receiving through the Clinton Global Intitative there are serious questions as to whether US policy decisions have been and/or will be made secondary to the needs and wants of big money special interests that Hillary and her people are deeply in bed with. This whole thing reeks.
So two people from the Clinton/Obama admins started a lobbying firm sometime between 2009 and 2012 (her time as Secy of state). Explain to me precisely how this lobbying firm played into specific State department decisions. Please be precise. The whole accusation is guilt by association. And then explain to me precisely what the Clinton Foundation has done wrong. And don't say 'refile tax returns' as if that's criminal and companies don't re-state or refile every all the time.
Comments
And last, I would have expected you to have renounced your 10C membership by now since EV is no better than Clooney. Your morals aren't relative, are they?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/04/was-an-asian-government-reading-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/
IF national security was compromised because of her want to skirt government transparency rules then she will be disqualified for the presidency and will likely be on her way to prison.
This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...
I am 30, I have never met anyone my age of younger who bought into McCarthyism. We tend to think of people who use McCarthyisms as weirdo extremists.
If you say commie, pinko, or you can't say socialist without a snarl, anybody under 35 is going to laugh at you like your the cover of a Donna Summers album.
It is important to note that McCarythism was outcast as fringe in the 50's when his credibility was destroyed. But anti-Red stuff continued well into the 90's.
http://cbs6albany.com/news/local/hillary-clinton-to-visit-cohoes-for-campaign-event
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
• Here is HRC yesterday celebrating with Gov. Cuomo New York's $15 victory (with strings & betrayals attached): http://ow.ly/2bwTw6
New York knows who our real champion has been, and New York will let Hillary know on April 19th.
Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.
Jeff Weaver is the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign.
Tad Devine is senior campaign strategist. And every presidential campaign he has worked on has lost!
http://m.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/young_turks_reveals_how_dnc_and_33_states_used_loopholes_hillary_20160406
You're forgetting that if Sanders is nominated he'll also be in the spotlight to challenge those claims.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/
It's no different than tying Devine to Putin through Yakunoyvch.
"It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November."
All of this while she was serving as Secretary of State. Now does this prove anything nefarious? No but between this and the money Hillary and Bill have been receiving through the Clinton Global Intitative there are serious questions as to whether US policy decisions have been and/or will be made secondary to the needs and wants of big money special interests that Hillary and her people are deeply in bed with. This whole thing reeks.
And then explain to me precisely what the Clinton Foundation has done wrong. And don't say 'refile tax returns' as if that's criminal and companies don't re-state or refile every all the time.