Hillary's lead over Bernie evaporating

[BurnItDwn]

Clinton is my second choice of the candidates. I everything she says is 100% purely political calculations. She seems like the type that will be concerned about staying in office rather than fighting the system.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Clinton is my second choice of the candidates. I everything she says is 100% purely political calculations. She seems like the type that will be concerned about staying in office rather than fighting the system.

Everything she says is just that as sales pitch. She really just wants to get in so she can become very wealthy, she has a hunger for wealth and power and knows this is a good waynto attain that,

 

[werepossum]

Everything she says is just that as sales pitch. She really just wants to get in so she can become very wealthy, she has a hunger for wealth and power and knows this is a good waynto attain that,

Can't stand the Hildabeast personally but that is pretty much true of them all. At least for the power; Trump obviously doesn't need help in generating wealth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Everything she says is just that as sales pitch. She really just wants to get in so she can become very wealthy, she has a hunger for wealth and power and knows this is a good waynto attain that,

Which is obviously why the Clintons pour money into their foundation rather than into their pockets, to get richer-

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

oh, wait... I forgot we're in that fact free Hilary hate groove, right?

 

[Indus]

This is also not helping Hildabeast..

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...ELECTION_2016&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

Bernie Sanders Most Popular Candidate Among Asian-Americans

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders enjoys the highest level of popularity for any major candidate of either party among Asian-Americans, with his favorable score exceeding his unfavorable score by 29 percentage points with this group. His competitor for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton, is not far behind, with a net favorable score of +21, while all of the Republican candidates are more disliked than liked by the fastest-growing racial group in the country. This is especially true for Donald Trump, whose favorability among Asian-Americans is underwater by 43 points.

 

[werepossum]

Which is obviously why the Clintons pour money into their foundation rather than into their pockets, to get richer-

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

oh, wait... I forgot we're in that fact free Hilary hate groove, right?

The Clintons pour OTHER PEOPLE'S money into their foundation.

 

[Hugo Drax]

If I was running for president I would hire Jhhnn. LOL

 

[LegendKiller]

Which is obviously why the Clintons pour money into their foundation rather than into their pockets, to get richer-

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

oh, wait... I forgot we're in that fact free Hilary hate groove, right?

Yeah, that's why they are only worth a paltry 111mm after being practically bankrupt after leaving the WH.

I guess she just took her massive SoS salary and bet it all on red.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Clintons pour OTHER PEOPLE'S money into their foundation.

And some of their own, as well, not to mention the time & effort spent getting other people's money into the foundation.

They're rainmakers for a legitimate charitable organization & they do it well.

 

[LegendKiller]

And some of their own, as well, not to mention the time & effort spent getting other people's money into the foundation.

They're rainmakers for a legitimate charitable organization & they do it well.

Rainmakers? LOL - they peddle influence to get others to donate to themselves and their organization. That organization then pours money into other areas to gain influence and perpetuate the cycle. They are political whores.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, that's why they are only worth a paltry 111mm after being practically bankrupt after leaving the WH.

I guess she just took her massive SoS salary and bet it all on red.

I'll grant that she exaggerated their cashflow situation after they left the White House.

Your raving ginger dreamboat is worth billions, meaning that the Clintons aren't even in the same league.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rainmakers? LOL - they peddle influence to get others to donate to themselves and their organization. That organization then pours money into other areas to gain influence and perpetuate the cycle. They are political whores.

Meanwhile, !89% of expenditures go to actual charity-

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Might want to compare that to some of the darling charities of the Right, like the Wounded Warrior project whose expenses on actual charity are only ~60% f what they spend-

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.VqlsVU-DCCk

They love whooping it up at lavish fundraisers.

Amazing how shitty a charity can be & still get a 3 star rating, huh?

 

[crashtech]

Hillary's gender just makes it different. She may garner more women's votes because of it. She'll likely lose some, too, because a lot of middle aged men & up have problems with women as authority figures.

Just sayin'...

Of course you're just sayin' it in the typical partisan surrogate style, blithely inserting slimy stereotypes that might get you in trouble with another group, but hey, it's just middle-aged dudes, no one cares. All that's missing is a racist slur, you've already got sexist and ageist part down pat.

But the problem is the candidate's personality, not gender. For instance, Dianne Feinstein does not elicit a negative reaction from me, though we differ on policy. Hillary is Hillary's main problem. She's a cold, calculating, anachronistic, second-wave feminist, second-rate player, whose only claim to glory is the ride she took on her hubby's coattails.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course you're just sayin' it in the typical partisan surrogate style, blithely inserting slimy stereotypes that might get you in trouble with another group, but hey, it's just middle-aged dudes, no one cares. All that's missing is a racist slur, you've already got sexist and ageist part down pat.

But the problem is the candidate's personality, not gender. For instance, Dianne Feinstein does not elicit a negative reaction from me, though we differ on policy. Hillary is Hillary's main problem. She's a cold, calculating, anachronistic, second-wave feminist, second-rate player, whose only claim to glory is the ride she took on her hubby's coattails.

Please. I'm a more than middle aged blue collar guy & I understand my peers rather well.

I wasn't being disparaging at all- merely lending my observations. I'm not alone in that-

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+men+feel+about+female+bosses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And speaking of slimy that pretty much sums up your second paragraph.

 

[crashtech]

Please. I'm a more than middle aged blue collar guy & I understand my peers rather well.

I wasn't being disparaging at all- merely lending my observations. I'm not alone in that-

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+men+feel+about+female+bosses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

And speaking of slimy that pretty much sums up your second paragraph.

I'm not the one disparaging a whole group of people. I'm contrasting a female politician who serves with a modicum of integrity to Hillary, a poor candidate who does not inspire much trust even within her own party. I stand by all my criticisms.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Meanwhile, !89% of expenditures go to actual charity-



http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Might want to compare that to some of the darling charities of the Right, like the Wounded Warrior project whose expenses on actual charity are only ~60% f what they spend-

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.VqlsVU-DCCk

They love whooping it up at lavish fundraisers.

Amazing how shitty a charity can be & still get a 3 star rating, huh?

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.


http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/2...wedding-600k-job-i-just-dont-care-about-money

Chelsea Clinton, $10M Apartment, $3M Wedding, $600K Job: I Just Don't Care About Money
The daughter of former President Bill Clinton and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton explained in a new interview why she left lucrative professions and opted for working with her family’s philanthropic foundation. ‘I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ she said.


https://www.byline.com/project/27/article/520

HOW DO YOU SPELL APPARENT FRAUD? THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SHADY ACCOUNTING AND AIDS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/till-bruckner/clinton-foundation-transp_1_b_7273540.html

Clinton Foundation Must Stop Hiding Behind Dark Money Groups

In its early days, the Clinton Foundation didn't disclose any of its donors, citing confidentiality agreements it had with them. Then, in 2008, under strong pressure, it changed tack and disclosed the names of its donors, a list that included some pretty unsavoury regimes and shady corporations. (The supposed confidentiality agreements were never mentioned again.)

Among the Clinton Foundation's biggest donors is yet another foundation based in Canada. Who are that foundation's donors? Sorry, that information cannot be revealed under Canadian laws. Well, ok, we might have misinterpreted those laws. Here's the names of some of its donors, but not of all of the donors. Yes, among these newly disclosed donors are yet more foundations. Well, it's hardly our fault if they themselves do not fully disclose... it just goes on and on and on.


Sorry but I will take Trump over this.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not the one disparaging a whole group of people. I'm contrasting a female politician who serves with a modicum of integrity to Hillary, a poor candidate who does not inspire much trust even within her own party. I stand by all my criticisms.

And the doubledown into more slime.

 

[crashtech]

And the doubledown into more slime.

Self-appointed arbiter of what constitutes slime, are you? Does it take one to know one? Maybe my remarks are slimy, accurate criticisms must by necessity be so, when describing slime.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.


http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/2...wedding-600k-job-i-just-dont-care-about-money

Chelsea Clinton, $10M Apartment, $3M Wedding, $600K Job: I Just Don't Care About Money
The daughter of former President Bill Clinton and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton explained in a new interview why she left lucrative professions and opted for working with her family’s philanthropic foundation. ‘I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ she said.


https://www.byline.com/project/27/article/520

HOW DO YOU SPELL APPARENT FRAUD? THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SHADY ACCOUNTING AND AIDS

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/till-bruckner/clinton-foundation-transp_1_b_7273540.html

Clinton Foundation Must Stop Hiding Behind Dark Money Groups

In its early days, the Clinton Foundation didn't disclose any of its donors, citing confidentiality agreements it had with them. Then, in 2008, under strong pressure, it changed tack and disclosed the names of its donors, a list that included some pretty unsavoury regimes and shady corporations. (The supposed confidentiality agreements were never mentioned again.)

Among the Clinton Foundation's biggest donors is yet another foundation based in Canada. Who are that foundation's donors? Sorry, that information cannot be revealed under Canadian laws. Well, ok, we might have misinterpreted those laws. Here's the names of some of its donors, but not of all of the donors. Yes, among these newly disclosed donors are yet more foundations. Well, it's hardly our fault if they themselves do not fully disclose... it just goes on and on and on.


Sorry but I will take Trump over this.

You merely repeat accusations that have not proven to be true, standard practice for Repub propagandists. If you read my link, above, you'd see that much of what has been presented as issues has been resolved. Read this while you're at it or just bask in partisan ignorance-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239

 

[crashtech]

I want to be more specific about my criticisms after watching vids of Hillary in action. I think some of is body language. She doesn't look at ease, or like she wants to be there. She's saying the right things to her constituents, but any passion she appears to muster looks contrived. There's nothing there that could inspire anyone not already sold. The overall effect is that of someone phoning it in. That, and she reminds me of Louse Fletcher's portrayal of Nurse Ratched, someone who sucks all the fun out of a room without even trying.

I think the US could use a female President, but give us one with some charisma and some leadership qualities, please.

 

[sportage]

Remember, during the Clinton administration the Clinton's shook things up quite a bit with their attempt at national healthcare.
Very much Bernie Sanders-ish sounding to me.
Rebel? Proposing something totally off the wall? Taking on the establishment?
Sounds more like Hillary's past than Bernie's.
But that was Hillary and Bill's MO, and their MO far before Bernie's MO.
So who's kidding who?
Will the rel rebel please stand up?
If you really want rebel, I'd bet on Rebel Hillary far before betting on newcomer rebel Bernie.

And remember also, who it was that killed off that Clinton national healthcare idea, THOSE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS.
It was US senate leader George Mitchell and his democratic rat pack that marched from the senate up to the whitehouse to "inform" Bill and Hillary that their national healthcare plan had been euthanized.

We all know how a Sanders presidency would play out.
A lot of old man grumbling and griping, cane waving, with a house and senate having nothing what-so-ever to do with anything coming from that Sanders administration.
And you thought the government was dysfunctional during Obama's eight years...
You ain't seen nothing yet.

And I feel sorry for Hillary.
She knows this. She lived this. And comes along a carbon copy, much less than a carbon copy named Bernie Sanders, and there is Hillary wondering WTF???
Hey people!!!! I started this. It was me me me and Bill taking on the establishment.
We own this, not Bernie Sanders. We built that bridge.

 

[shady28]

Which is obviously why the Clintons pour money into their foundation rather than into their pockets, to get richer-

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

oh, wait... I forgot we're in that fact free Hilary hate groove, right?

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’

The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
...
Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.
...
Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yes, clearly being a woman is a huge advantage in running for president. That's why we have had so many of them in the past.

I agree, just like being black isn't a huge advantage to getting elected when you have next to nothing in senate experience, and continuously flip flop on issues based on what the public is currently thinking.... oh wait.

Next in line: Gays. Magically they will become more qualified.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, just like being black isn't a huge advantage to getting elected when you have next to nothing in senate experience, and continuously flip flop on issues based on what the public is currently thinking.... oh wait.

Next in line: Gays. Magically they will become more qualified.

Lol, so being black wasn't just an advantage but a huge advantage! Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

I linked research earlier that directly refutes this. Let me guess though, that research is all wrong because reasons.

 

[Exophase]

Some perspective of older women more committed to Hillary because they see her as her their last opportunity to see a female president, and some of the ways she's strongly emphasized her gender in the campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/u...nder-factor-in-hillary-clintons-bid.html?_r=0

Major media feminist Jessica Valenti says Clinton is running an "explicitly feminist presidential campaign." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...oyal-followers-lena-dunham-planned-parenthood That probably helps a lot more coming from an actual woman. Clinton has previously referred to the presidency as the "highest, hardest glass ceiling."

And she thinks women don't just govern "differently" but "A female president would be more attuned to the issues facing America's families than a male president" http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...emale-politicians-govern-differently-than-men Think she'd say that if she's the only one who thought that and this wasn't a message that resonated with other people?

If there's more bias against women than for women then Hillary's choice to lean so heavily on her gender in her campaign is probably not a good one. Maybe the fact that she did so much less of that against Obama is a sign of how society's sensibilities have shifted even since then.