Ain't it wonderful how she can out-Bernie Bernie? And to think just a few short months ago she was all about bombing the fvck out of everywhere.Pwns wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ns-united/
What could possibly strike more fear in the hearts of establishment politicians than letting a bunch of incumbents and career politicians re-write the rules on campaign finance?
Of course, I doubt she really follows through when she gets elected, but it'll still be funny to watch her try to win Bernie voters over.
Why not? Everything else is for sale.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think government should be regulating campaign contributions at all. Anybody or any institution should be able to contribute as much as they want to support the candidate of their choice. But I don't think it's anything unusual for Democrats to be taking Hillary's position on this. They've been on an anti "Citizens United" mantra ever since the decision was rendered.
Democrats: "Politics should not be for sale!"houndawg wrote:Why not? Everything else is for sale.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think government should be regulating campaign contributions at all. Anybody or any institution should be able to contribute as much as they want to support the candidate of their choice. But I don't think it's anything unusual for Democrats to be taking Hillary's position on this. They've been on an anti "Citizens United" mantra ever since the decision was rendered.
And she is either tied or losing in the polls. What do you want to bet she's already called every super delegate in the party and reminded them of the file she has on them?DSUrocks07 wrote:Democrats: "Politics should not be for sale!"houndawg wrote:
Why not? Everything else is for sale.
Bernie Sanders still raised $200 million AFTER it was clear he had no path to the nomination.
Hillary is outspending Trump nearly 40:1 on ads.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
It's easy. The alternative is Trump. Doesn't take much effort at all to justify voting for HIllary.93henfan wrote:It's funny to listen to people who will be voting for Hillary trying to justify it.
So you think elections should be determined by money rather than ideas.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think government should be regulating campaign contributions at all. Anybody or any institution should be able to contribute as much as they want to support the candidate of their choice.
Nonsense.JohnStOnge wrote:It's easy. The alternative is Trump. Doesn't take much effort at all to justify voting for HIllary.93henfan wrote:It's funny to listen to people who will be voting for Hillary trying to justify it.
No she's not. I just posted on that in another thread. Below is the RealClearPolitics list of polls that include Johnson and Stein; which is the list to look at because Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot. The most recent set of swing State polls also had her ahead in Florida and Pennsylvania as well as tied in Ohio. If the election were to be held tomorrow and you had to bet on who was going to win the smart bet would be Hillary. And I think she'd win all three of those referenced swing States. But it's true that she's been overwhelmingly outspending Trump on ads. That's a legitimate consideration.houndawg wrote:And she is either tied or losing in the polls.
'''kalm wrote:So you think elections should be determined by money rather than ideas.JohnStOnge wrote:I don't think government should be regulating campaign contributions at all. Anybody or any institution should be able to contribute as much as they want to support the candidate of their choice.
Right. So you're really just full of shit when it comes to the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country and the constitution. Unbridled wealth and power destroy liberty and democracy and you can't reconcile that.JohnStOnge wrote:'''kalm wrote:
So you think elections should be determined by money rather than ideas.
I think that if someone or some institution wants to promote the ideas of a particular candidate they should be completely free to do that and spend as much money as they want to in doing it.
I said that the fact that she has been outspending Trump is a concern. But, right now, she is clearly ahead in the polls. I was just saying that it's not true that she is behind or tied in the polls. When you look at the RealClearPolitics averages she is ahead in the polls nationally and she is ahead in the polls in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Is she ahead by as much as I'd like? No. But the objective reality right now is that at this moment in time she's ahead in the polls. She's not "behind or tied."93henfan wrote:You are hilarious in your constant defense of your girl Hillary. The fact that Trump is breathing down her neck when she should be winning in landslide fashion has you so shook up. It is really a joy to watch how much energy you are spending trying to refute everything posted negatively about your girl.
Trump may just pull this off. And if he doesn't Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Either way, we'll be pointing at you and laughing on this board.
I am not aware of anything in the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country indicating that the people of the time thought that people shouldn't be able to contribute as much as they wished to support candidates of their choice.kalm wrote: Right. So you're really just full of **** when it comes to the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country and the constitution.
Now you're just playing dumb. I think you're far too intelligent to be this uninformed.JohnStOnge wrote:I am not aware of anything in the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country indicating that the people of the time thought that people shouldn't be able to contribute as much as they wished to support candidates of their choice.kalm wrote: Right. So you're really just full of **** when it comes to the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country and the constitution.
Ok. Educate me. Tell me about some writings from the time that would suggest that those involved in crafting the Constitution wanted to prevent people from contributing as much as they wanted to political campaigns.kalm wrote:Now you're just playing dumb. I think you're far too intelligent to be this uninformed.JohnStOnge wrote:
I am not aware of anything in the intent and ideas behind the founding of this country indicating that the people of the time thought that people shouldn't be able to contribute as much as they wished to support candidates of their choice.
I've never said she was behind in the polls. She's behind in individual polls but is ahead in many more.JohnStOnge wrote:I said that the fact that she has been outspending Trump is a concern. But, right now, she is clearly ahead in the polls. I was just saying that it's not true that she is behind or tied in the polls. When you look at the RealClearPolitics averages she is ahead in the polls nationally and she is ahead in the polls in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Is she ahead by as much as I'd like? No. But the objective reality right now is that at this moment in time she's ahead in the polls. She's not "behind or tied."93henfan wrote:You are hilarious in your constant defense of your girl Hillary. The fact that Trump is breathing down her neck when she should be winning in landslide fashion has you so shook up. It is really a joy to watch how much energy you are spending trying to refute everything posted negatively about your girl.
Trump may just pull this off. And if he doesn't Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Either way, we'll be pointing at you and laughing on this board.
I am well aware of the fact that Trump has a chance. And I'm probably not going to be satisfied by the outcome regardless because I think what would be best for this country is for Trump to lose in a landslide of historic proportions. But if you're talking about right now she's not behind or tied in the polls. She's ahead.
You're still being intellectually dishonest but...JohnStOnge wrote:Ok. Educate me. Tell me about some writings from the time that would suggest that those involved in crafting the Constitution wanted to prevent people from contributing as much as they wanted to political campaigns.kalm wrote:
Now you're just playing dumb. I think you're far too intelligent to be this uninformed.
NY Times has her behind in FL and PA and tied in Ohio.JohnStOnge wrote:No she's not. I just posted on that in another thread. Below is the RealClearPolitics list of polls that include Johnson and Stein; which is the list to look at because Johnson and Stein will be on the ballot. The most recent set of swing State polls also had her ahead in Florida and Pennsylvania as well as tied in Ohio. If the election were to be held tomorrow and you had to bet on who was going to win the smart bet would be Hillary. And I think she'd win all three of those referenced swing States. But it's true that she's been overwhelmingly outspending Trump on ads. That's a legitimate consideration.houndawg wrote:And she is either tied or losing in the polls.
My hope is that it doesn't matter as much as it might because everybody knows Trump. But we'll see.
Jesus, John.kalm wrote:You're still being intellectually dishonest but...JohnStOnge wrote:
Ok. Educate me. Tell me about some writings from the time that would suggest that those involved in crafting the Constitution wanted to prevent people from contributing as much as they wanted to political campaigns.
The status quo ante.93henfan wrote:You are hilarious in your constant defense of your girl Hillary. The fact that Trump is breathing down her neck when she should be winning in landslide fashion has you so shook up. It is really a joy to watch how much energy you are spending trying to refute everything posted negatively about your girl.
Trump may just pull this off. And if he doesn't Hillary will be an unmitigated disaster for the country. Either way, we'll be pointing at you and laughing on this board.
