That was funny. It was also sad when you realize he's probably one of the more informed of the democratic voters.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
A deputy communications director for the Clinton campaign allegedly sent out an email which included a statement that Breitbart "should not exist".
Several questions- first, should this statement be interpreted as a threat to use governmental power, in the event of a Clinton victory, to shut down Breitbart? Second, if it was just hyperbole, what kind of outrage from the MSM would we be seeing if a Trump communications directors made a similar comment about a moonbat site such as Salon or Huffington Post? Finally, assuming arguendo that the comment was a threat to shut down Breitbart, I would ask any of our board liberals with a J.D. (and that eliminates YOU, Fuzz/RGarnold), under what possible exception to First Amendment law could justify such a move?
Several questions- first, should this statement be interpreted as a threat to use governmental power, in the event of a Clinton victory, to shut down Breitbart? Second, if it was just hyperbole, what kind of outrage from the MSM would we be seeing if a Trump communications directors made a similar comment about a moonbat site such as Salon or Huffington Post? Finally, assuming arguendo that the comment was a threat to shut down Breitbart, I would ask any of our board liberals with a J.D. (and that eliminates YOU, Fuzz/RGarnold), under what possible exception to First Amendment law could justify such a move?
I asked this a few weeks ago without an answer and I'll ask again.
Can you show one example of a voter ID disenfranchising a black person?
Leaving race aside, can you imagine a law that disenfranchised everyone who fails to pay Federal Income Tax, without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, etc? Not that I would agree with it; it would be unconstitutional. But, just like Lennon suggest....imagine. Would the Democrats ever win another national election, if such a thing happened?
I like how whenever someone posts a link or a video for Moe he clearly doesn't click or watch them. But Moe expects you to click on any link or video he posts.
I am unable to do that; I can't read his posts. Well, I guess I could if I hit the "show ignored content" link.
They certainly would have a tough time. If that ever was a law though the dems would have had it overturned and the pussy republicans would have let them overturn it.
@Teachable Moe
Im still waiting for you to answer about the 88% and your opinion on the reason that nc law is different than "non racist" voter id laws.
Seriously, no one has answered the question on how its racist. 900 page thread and its certainly been called racist numerous times but no pne can answer.
And we sure as hll dont have lek calling for facts
Im still waiting for you to answer about the 88% and your opinion on the reason that nc law is different than "non racist" voter id laws.
Seriously, no one has answered the question on how its racist. 900 page thread and its certainly been called racist numerous times but no pne can answer.
And we sure as hll dont have lek calling for facts
I don't see that a comment such as that implies any call to action at all. It takes all of about .6 seconds to imagine something similar. Like ugly dogs. I wish ugly dogs didn't exist but who'd want to do anything at all to effect that? ("arguendo"!!! I hope you had Rumpole on.)
How about an answer. Or just admit youre FOS and just a hillary pumper. Either one works.
Continued ignoring, when i have provided information is the exact response expected from you.
Whats wrong? Too busy wondering why hilldog keeps losing daily?
Pathetic
Write the Voter ID law as follows: all citizens voting must present a proper voter id. If you can't afford one the Srate will provide it for you free of charge. End of Bill. Does that meet with everyone's approval?
Then let's assume arguendo that she was just joking or talking hypothetically about it as we would talk about ugly dogs. How would the MSM have handled it Trump's employee had made a similar joke?
On another note, I will give Hillary this much credit. She would never say something like that herself- that's what underlings are for. Trump needs to grasp that concept- actually, given his lack of gaffes in the last few days, perhaps he has.
Since @Teachable Moe is clearly i liberal hack who will not respond to actual facts in any way shape or form. Ill just post this here for him to gloss over.
If anyone actually reaponds to the trash lnown as @Teachable Moe you are wasting time. His claim was the clinton foundation donates 88% to charity. Obviously without any research most know thst is complete BS. But heres an accurate breakdown:
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?
Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.
How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.
But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundationinclude a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.
According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.
If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.
The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
If anyone actually reaponds to the trash lnown as @Teachable Moe you are wasting time. His claim was the clinton foundation donates 88% to charity. Obviously without any research most know thst is complete BS. But heres an accurate breakdown:
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?
Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.
How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.
But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundationinclude a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.
According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.
If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.
The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
my feelings on voter ID:
-- I've always thought it should be federalized, not a patchwork. I don't like the idea of presidential elections being affected by state-by-state gamesmanship; the current variation (mail-in voting, etc) already drives me insane
-- It should to be free for everyone. And I'm talking state-funded programs to get people to the office, etc., if they can prove a need. It's much easier to get to a polling station than a DMV, courthouse, etc.
-- It should be available at least one calendar year before the first election for which it would be required. Ideally, it would be two years due to the federal elections.
-- The state should go to incredible lengths to make sure every citizen is aware of the changes and the process. We're talking commercials, mail, everything.
Additionally, it should be a stand-alone intervention. Too many of these state-level bills include changes in voting periods, polling places, etc. Voter ID is a unique issue, in my mind. Should be treated as such.
voting is THE fundamental right in our society (it delineates every other "right" we assert for ourselves). Changing the status quo should be treated with great caution and seriousness.
I guess only candidates can make "gaffes"? Anyway, if the media can gaffe, that was a gaffe. The gaffe, of course, was from CNN, not the person who posted on Twitter. I have to make sure I make that clear, because there are dimwitted moonbats on the forum.
Here you are, tool.
sycophant
[sik-uh-fuh nt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]
noun
1.
a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
Has nothing to do with hillary reading these boards. And no, i was suggesting youre a woman. No male acts as douchey(yea, i made that word up) as you. And ill show my work. Check the last 900 pages. And no im not considering dragon ball z or moe in the category.
But again, you dont show crap. You continue to post nonsense hoping to get a like or two from your fellow legion of douches.
Seriously, i feel for your acquaintances. Those forced to interract with such a miserable excuse of a person.
I can do emojis also.
![[sick]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/sick/sick0006.r191677.gif "Sick [sick]")
A 4th post. Wow. Now that is a tirade. And you still don't get it.
Perhaps you should take a break emo dude? You are awfully rattled. Not only when your argument is cut to pieces (as all your posts), you get angry, insult my sexual orientation, insult my friends, insult my person, then guns emoticon? So emotional. Do you want to cut yourself too?
But seriously, I don't take any of your insults to mean anything. Really stupid people just make me laugh. See, you think I am miserable because I am "mean" or "hurt" your feelings. I think you are miserable because you have the IQ of a potato. I know you don't see the difference and that is why you're special.
Last edited:
People are still responding to Moe? It doesn't matter what you say. He'll continue to spew party line nonsense and adds nothing to the discussion. Save your time and atop paying attention.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. Good luck with that. Because they're all settles facts. No matter how far you stick your head in the sand.
Totally fair and completely without reasonable objection. Dems would still fight it tooth and nail of course. Which tells you all you need to know
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. Good luck with that. Because they're all settles facts. No matter how far you stick your head in the sand.
Totally fair and completely without reasonable objection. Dems would still fight it tooth and nail of course. Which tells you all you need to know
As I have said before, one step at a time will eventually take all of our rights away. The democrats creedo.
Since @Teachable Moe is clearly i liberal hack who will not respond to actual facts in any way shape or form. Ill just post this here for him to gloss over.
If anyone actually reaponds to the trash lnown as @Teachable Moe you are wasting time. His claim was the clinton foundation donates 88% to charity. Obviously without any research most know thst is complete BS. But heres an accurate breakdown:
There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.
In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?
Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.
How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false. Office chairs do not directly save lives. The internet connection for the group’s headquarters does not directly change lives.
But what if those employees and those IT costs and those travel expenses indirectly save lives, you might ask. Sure, it’s overhead, but what if it’s overhead in the service of a larger mission? Fair question. Even using the broadest definition of “program expenses” possible, however, the 88 percent claim is still false. How do we know? Because the IRS 990 forms submitted by the Clinton Foundationinclude a specific and detailed accounting of these programmatic expenses. And even using extremely broad definitions–definitions that allow office supply, rent, travel, and IT costs to be counted as programmatic costs–the Clinton Foundation fails its own test.
According to 2013 tax forms filed by the Clinton Foundation, a mere 80 percent of the organization’s expenditures were characterized as functional programmatic expenses. That’s a far cry from the 88 percent claimed by the organization just last week.
If you take a narrower, and more realistic, view of the tax-exempt group’s expenditures by excluding obvious overhead expenses and focusing on direct grants to charities and governments, the numbers look much worse. In 2013, for example, only 10 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s expenditures were for direct charitable grants. The amount it spent on charitable grants–$8.8 million–was dwarfed by the $17.2 million it cumulatively spent on travel, rent, and office supplies. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.
While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.
The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.
counterpoint:
How about you give the guy a little time to get some answers from Media Matters and Correct the Record? Geez.
http://www.thewrap.com/barbra-streisand-siri-apple-tim-cook/
There are real problems in this nation. Barbara Waa Waa will probably sue.
There are real problems in this nation. Barbara Waa Waa will probably sue.
A 4th post. Wow. Now that is a tirade. And you still don't get it.
Perhaps you should take a break emo dude? You are awfully rattled. Not only when your argument is cut to pieces (as all your posts), you get angry, insult my sexual orientation, insult my friends, insult my person, then guns emoticon? So emotional. Do you want to cut yourself too?
But seriously, I don't take any of your insults to mean anything. Really stupid people just make me laugh. See, you think I am miserable because I am "mean" or "hurt" your feelings. I think you are miserable because you have the IQ of a potato. I know you don't see the difference and that is why you're special.
Lol no you dont get it. And youre no longer worth arguing with. Good luck with your miserable existence.
More good news for the DNC, I hope we have their EBT cards ready and the schools they land in are ready to take resources away from other poor students (mostly black). After HRC, we will have 8 years of a latino, and then 8 years of a gay, and then 8 years of a transgender. THEN it will be a country we can all be proud of.
Just thankful the pilgrims, George Washington and his buds built this country. Had that shit wrapped up by the turn of the 19th century and we didn't have to do anything for the next 200+ years. I remember reading about James Madison and his antics during the construction of the Empire State Building. Dangling off support beams and shit. Dude was crazy.
Here is an interesting read for a Sunday morning. Here's something in the article for Ziusuckra.
"Victor Pinchuk, a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr. Clinton’s star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
Between September 2011 and November 2012, Douglas E. Schoen, a former political consultant for Mr. Clinton, arranged about a dozen meetings with State Department officials on behalf of or with Mr. Pinchuk to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine, according to reports Mr. Schoen filed as a registered lobbyist.
“I had breakfast with Pinchuk. He will see you at the Brookings lunch,” Melanne Verveer, a Ukrainian-American then working for the State Department, wrote in a June 2012 email to Mrs. Clinton.
A previously undisclosed email obtained by Citizens United, the conservative advocacy group, through public records lawsuits shows the name of Mr. Pinchuk, described as one of Ukraine’s “most successful businessmen,” among those on an eight-page list of influential people invited to a dinner party at the Clintons’ home.
Earlier in 2012, Ambassador John F. Tefft wrote to Mrs. Clinton about a visit to Ukraine by Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, “at the invitation of oligarch, Victor Pinchuk.” Mrs. Clinton replied, “As you know, hearing nice things about your children is as good as it gets.”
In July 2013, the Commerce Department began investigating complaints that Ukraine — and by extension Mr. Pinchuk’s company, Interpipe — and eight other countries had illegally dumped a type of steel tube on the American market at artificially low prices."
Here's something else for Moe regarding a simple "commodity" as he called it.
"A deal involving the sale of American uranium holdings to a Russian state-owned enterprise was another example of the foundation intersecting with Mrs. Clinton’s official role in the Obama administration. Her State Department was among the agencies that signed off on the deal, which involved major Clinton charitable backers from Canada.
There was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton had exerted influence over the deal, but the timing of the transaction and the donations raised questions about whether the donors had received favorable handling."
I wonder why a charitable foundation that provides food and shelter for babies and puppies would be involved in helping Russia gain access to material used in the construction of nuclear weapons?
"Victor Pinchuk, a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr. Clinton’s star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
Between September 2011 and November 2012, Douglas E. Schoen, a former political consultant for Mr. Clinton, arranged about a dozen meetings with State Department officials on behalf of or with Mr. Pinchuk to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine, according to reports Mr. Schoen filed as a registered lobbyist.
“I had breakfast with Pinchuk. He will see you at the Brookings lunch,” Melanne Verveer, a Ukrainian-American then working for the State Department, wrote in a June 2012 email to Mrs. Clinton.
A previously undisclosed email obtained by Citizens United, the conservative advocacy group, through public records lawsuits shows the name of Mr. Pinchuk, described as one of Ukraine’s “most successful businessmen,” among those on an eight-page list of influential people invited to a dinner party at the Clintons’ home.
Earlier in 2012, Ambassador John F. Tefft wrote to Mrs. Clinton about a visit to Ukraine by Chelsea Clinton and her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, “at the invitation of oligarch, Victor Pinchuk.” Mrs. Clinton replied, “As you know, hearing nice things about your children is as good as it gets.”
In July 2013, the Commerce Department began investigating complaints that Ukraine — and by extension Mr. Pinchuk’s company, Interpipe — and eight other countries had illegally dumped a type of steel tube on the American market at artificially low prices."
Here's something else for Moe regarding a simple "commodity" as he called it.
"A deal involving the sale of American uranium holdings to a Russian state-owned enterprise was another example of the foundation intersecting with Mrs. Clinton’s official role in the Obama administration. Her State Department was among the agencies that signed off on the deal, which involved major Clinton charitable backers from Canada.
There was no evidence that Mrs. Clinton had exerted influence over the deal, but the timing of the transaction and the donations raised questions about whether the donors had received favorable handling."
I wonder why a charitable foundation that provides food and shelter for babies and puppies would be involved in helping Russia gain access to material used in the construction of nuclear weapons?
Explain to us how the open borders policy you support would work? Based on where we are today, not chomsky blank slate idealism.
There was a time, a long time, when immigrants came to this country with the idea that they were going to work hard and provide a better life for themselves and their families. There were no welfare programs for them to rely on. Those people were taking advantage of America due to its "opportunity" for success. Now we have people pouring in who have no inclination to work and take advantage of America due to its "convenience".
Take it up with Charity Watch (www.charitywatch.org) who audited the CF. I attributed them the first time. You apparently didn't see it. You know for sure, do you, that the people whom you quoted have honestly characterized the CF? They couldn't possibly have an ax to grind?
I apologize for making fun of your concern. It had drifted into a harangue, it seemed to me. You'd begun badgering me because you didn't like the form of my replies. Please, give it a rest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...moves-clinton-foundation-from-its-watch-list/
Oh. fark it. Really. Trump has used inflammatory remarks as a way to run his campaign on the cheap. If he'd been ignored he'd have disappeared after Iowa. Now that the country seems to have paled on his inflammatory remarks you want sympathy? That's rather like the kid who shot his parents asking for pity because he's an orphan.
Ah, belief in a Golden Age. Now there are parasites sapping our strength from within. People who would betray us. Who have every intent to betray us. Who are betraying us even as we speak. While the intelligentsia dither, our enemies are gaining a foothold. We must act. That is the secret. Act now. Gather together as one. Find the leader who can unite us and save us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...le-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/
31 votes per billion. It's an fairly large expense to fix a relatively teensy issue. Making it rational is all well and good, but it's reasonable to assume that the GOP pushed the issue for the non-reasonable tweaks they could use. Like purging the voter rolls in Florida. Well, if non-felonious poor were purged in the process, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. 537 votes elected George Bush. So, the GOP is not above searching the couch for change, so to speak.
zcrow?
The Hill @thehill 20m20 minutes ago
Clinton campaign hasn't found anyone to play Trump in debate prep http://hill.cm/yIlHyJO
The Hill @thehill 20m20 minutes ago
Clinton campaign hasn't found anyone to play Trump in debate prep http://hill.cm/yIlHyJO
How much of the war on terror is about diverting eyes and ears away from the war on drugs/mexico? How much is tied together?
I jkst learned Bill Clinton was all up in Mexico, too. Surprise. It's unreal. Mexico elected* a crooked politician with a Harvard phd who made billions from cocaine alone, brought in billions of contracts for Mexico with US help, and their people suffered during this time. Violence exploded. Mexico had stupid money coming in. Where did it go?
I jkst learned Bill Clinton was all up in Mexico, too. Surprise. It's unreal. Mexico elected* a crooked politician with a Harvard phd who made billions from cocaine alone, brought in billions of contracts for Mexico with US help, and their people suffered during this time. Violence exploded. Mexico had stupid money coming in. Where did it go?
If they just gave an opinion it wouldnt have merit. They used cold hard facts from the clinton foundation.
So yeah, you are right actually...they are probably lies
Why do we have a war on drugs? A huge component of crime is drug related. And the cost of incarceration alone is between $30,000-$60,000 per prisoner per year. The toll in burglaries and robberies and extra police to combat it is in addition to that. Not to mention the murders and assaults.
Similar threads
