Democrats finally admit Putin did not defeat Hillary!

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2017 11:58:33 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We'll never know what he says behind closed doors, and he's being called out by his critics because America is so party-locked that pigs will fly before his supporters utter a bad word against their own side.

I don't consider you a party hack, hence I'm appealing to your reason.

If his taking half a million dollars to chat up a cabal of Wall Street power brokers straight out of his presidency truly doesn't bother you, if it doesn't strike you as antithetical to everything he's claimed to represent since those early days in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming hope and change for the little people, then you'll have to explain your reasoning to me.

As I see it, for anyone who still has post-election faith in his concern for the moms and pops of Main Street, he could not possibly sell out harder or faster than he just did.

Sen. Bernie Sanders believes former President Barack Obama's plan to receive $400,000 for speaking at a September Wall Street health conference is "distasteful," The Vermont Independent reported Friday.

www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-wall-street-speech/

Former Presidents make the most in speaking fees when they first depart office. Its fairly common for most Presidents to take advantage of this. If he was speaking to Wall Street on how to take advantage of the federal government or going to a school administrator's conference telling them how to fight transgender laws, I'd agree with you. I'm not sure what great value there is in a Wall Street health conference, having never attended one, but its likely he was asked to speak because of the ACA.

Wall Street is about one thing: making money. Wall Street invites speakers with the expectation that these speakers will advise them on how to make more money.

A Wall Street health conference is a conference where a speaker advises a Wall Street cabal on how to make more money in the healthcare sector. This could be through strategies for arbitrage, new kinds of derivatives or loosely collateralized securities, finding new niches for capital markets, etc.  But as Pres. Obama knows precisely jack about arbitrage, securities, and capital markets, I suspect the cabal's $400K was spent to purchase some good old fashioned government connections and insider info on Democrats' future plans for healthcare, which can be just as useful in helping the cabal to make even more money.

So thank you, Pres. Obama. Not only did you ram through the crummiest, most ill-conceived healthcare system ever devised by man--by subterfuge--in a big wet kiss to America's insurers, you're also advising Wall Street on how to profit as the whole thing collapses, for a mere $400K.

The optics may not be great, you may look like you don't give a snow leopard's fuzzy white arse about any of the values you espoused during your campaigns, but we still love you because capitalism. And because hastily selling out is just something newly-retired US presidents do.

[Miss Tequila]

May 3, 2017 12:07:22 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Republican House members voted yesterday to allow employers to compensate employees with paid time off in lieu of overtime pay.


Nice!  This makes my scheduling headaches a bit easier.  I can work you like a dog this week, and next week when we're slow I don't have to worry about you working. And I hate paying overtime anyway.  Sweet! 

I actually prefer this. When I was a young one in public accounting my firm used to give us comp time. Now to be fair, we were all salaried any way so it was just a way to entice people to stay. We had to use 3 weeks of the comp time but the rest could either be paid out or time taken off. I NEVER chose to be paid out.  I worked like a dog during our busy times but to me having those 8 weeks of comp time (in addition to vacation ) made it worth it.  It also made scheduling for the firm easier. We needed more bodies during the busy season but then were stuck paying people for weeks to just sit around. It was win/win...until it was determined that it violated labor laws so they stopped it. Which totally sucked because I am a person who much prefers a lot of time off over more money.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 15:05:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 3, 2017 11:58:33 GMT -5 Opti said:

Sen. Bernie Sanders believes former President Barack Obama's plan to receive $400,000 for speaking at a September Wall Street health conference is "distasteful," The Vermont Independent reported Friday.

www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-wall-street-speech/

Former Presidents make the most in speaking fees when they first depart office. Its fairly common for most Presidents to take advantage of this. If he was speaking to Wall Street on how to take advantage of the federal government or going to a school administrator's conference telling them how to fight transgender laws, I'd agree with you. I'm not sure what great value there is in a Wall Street health conference, having never attended one, but its likely he was asked to speak because of the ACA.

Wall Street is about one thing: making money. Wall Street invites speakers with the expectation that these speakers will advise them on how to make more money.

A Wall Street health conference is a conference where a speaker advises a Wall Street cabal on how to make more money in the healthcare sector. This could be through strategies for arbitrage, new kinds of derivatives or loosely collateralized securities, finding new niches for capital markets, etc.  But as Pres. Obama knows precisely jack about arbitrage, securities, and capital markets, I suspect the cabal's $400K was spent to purchase some good old fashioned government connections and insider info on Democrats' future plans for healthcare, which can be just as useful in helping the cabal to make even more money.

So thank you, Pres. Obama. Not only did you ram through the crummiest, most ill-conceived healthcare system ever devised by man--by subterfuge--in a big wet kiss to America's insurers, you're also advising Wall Street on how to profit as the whole thing collapses, for a mere $400K.

The optics may not be great, you may look like you don't give a snow leopard's fuzzy white arse about any of the values you espoused during your campaigns, but we still love you because capitalism. And because hastily selling out is just something newly-retired US presidents do.

I don't know enough about this conference to judge, but your post prompted me to find something similar done by JP Morgan. That leads me to believe its more about healthcare companies than what you believe, but again IDK.

www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2015/01/16/jp-morgan-healthcare-conference-becomes-a-shopping-mall-for-wall-street/#620840067bd5

Billions of dollar under management, pensions, endowments and foundations - with mandates to invest in life science, biotech and health companies – are in one mall-like area to gather insights on market dynamics, hearing firsthand from the movers and shakers that claim to impact the market. Strategic meetings are arranged, CEOs spread the word, and new technology licensing deals are showcased as the next big thing.

[Phoenix84]

May 3, 2017 8:51:18 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

I'm going to have to do this is several posts.

#4 is ironic, given some of the voters actually believe a billionaire is for the poor and middle class simply because he says he is and eats fast food. Earning money does not have to be a corrupting influence, but unfortunately way to many folks seem to assume it doesn't corrupt Republicans but somehow only corrupts Democrats. If you believe otherwise, and support Trump, how is it OK he earns what he does, cheats his contractors and then claims he is for the Americans losing their jobs? The billionaire that is known for hiring people from other countries to work at his hotels who is for rejecting American applicants to those positions?

Should Obama turn down big speaking fees just to make his opponents happy?

Yes, but you're thinking about this logically.  Most people don't vote logically, they vote their feelings.

Think about it.  America is still very much a capitalist country.  We respect business and the free markets.  And whatever you may think about Trump, he is a successful business man that has amassed a lot of money.  A lot of people respect that.  Now, contrast a business owner with a career politician who gets rich through kickbacks (i.e. "non profits," speaking fees, book deals, campaign donations ect).  Who do you think people are going to trust more, just at face value, the business man who earned his income in the market, or a career politician who earned their money through their office and backroom deals.

As you pointed out, you can poke all kinds of holes in the above argument.  "But Phoenix" you say "Trump got lots of startup capital from his dad, Trump is not a self made man" or "Trump is a billionaire, how can he possibly relate to the working class?" or "Trump has stiffed contractors that did work for him and hires cheap labor overseas."  All true, but that's not the point.  The point is not how you perceive Trump, but how many, in our capitalistic, politician hating culture perceive Trump.

There's more to it.  Many people still believe in the idea of trickle down economics.  Furthermore, it's a common perception, whether true or not, that republicans are out for the wealthy.  Democrats, in fact, go out of their way to portray republicans as stooges for the wealthy.  So when a republican gets a fat donation from wall street bankers, most people just shrug their shoulders and say "what do you expect?"  When a democrat takes that same donation from that same wall street firm, then turns around and tries to sell you that he's for the middle class and wall street is evil, his words ring hollow. 

[Gardening Grandma]

May 3, 2017 12:15:47 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 12:07:22 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Republican House members voted yesterday to allow employers to compensate employees with paid time off in lieu of overtime pay.


Nice!  This makes my scheduling headaches a bit easier.  I can work you like a dog this week, and next week when we're slow I don't have to worry about you working. And I hate paying overtime anyway.  Sweet! 

Hopefully it will fail in the Senate like prior similar bills. The bad thing about a bill like this is most times the employee is never allowed to take that time off, because its always the wrong time. And its not much of a plus to an employee to work extra hours only being allowed to use hours off at the employer's discretion.

Kind of like never being able to use airline miles except at the worst possible times.

[Phoenix84]

May 3, 2017 8:57:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 8:21:11 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

I think they lost for many reasons, including.

1. Hillary was just a bad candidate on many levels, and just not well liked by wide swaths of the electorate.

2. Despite the above, in their hubris and pride, they bought into the "demographics are destiny" idea and the "inevitability" of her election.  In other words, they failed to realized that candidate likability and ability to relate to voters trump (no pun intended) demographics.

3. They focused on the "Obama Coalition" of minorities and upper middle class voters interested in social justice reform to the exclusion of the working class, especially the white working class/union constituency.  In other words, they focused on pushing LGBT and minority social justice causes and ignored the economic struggles facing people in the Midwest and south. 

4. The corrupting influence of money.  The democrats claim to be for the poor and middle class, but then Obama gets $400k in speaking fees from wall street bankers and liberal think tanks and foundations are funded by millionaires and billionaires.  It gets a little hard to claim you're for the poor and middle class when you're just as corrupted by money as the other party.   

I will agree with some of that, but Hillary did not court LGBT the way Obama and Holder did, nor do I think she was as interested as pushing as hard as they did on those issues. I do think some of the pushback came from people uneasy with Obama's and Holder's push for transgender rights way before a tipping point of the population was ready.

She should have reached out to others. I agree on that. Those economic struggles are not limited to the Midwest and South though.

Well, if you go back and watch the DNC convention, which lays forth the party platform, there was a lot of pandering to LGBT, illegal immigrants/latinos, black lives matter ect, and of course women's issues.  You're right in that perhaps LGBT weren't front and center, but the point is the democrats were trying to appeal to specific issues that affected specific minorities, not the broad issues (like the economy) that affect lots of people.

Furthermore, you are right in that economic issues don't just affect the Midwest and south.  I just read an interesting article about how the U.S has lost more retail jobs than coal jobs in the last several years. 

[Phoenix84]

I could add a number 5.

5. Too many liberals live in too few cities/states.  Furthermore, it seems like all the prominent democrats are from the east and west coast, California, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, ect.

[mroped]

May 3, 2017 8:24:45 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

It wasn't Russia. It was a failure to grasp human nature.

Right that it maybe wasn't Russia but nor was the human nature. What failed Clinton was an archaic electoral setting that was created to give power to all states alike and not just to those that are heavily populated.
Otherwise Clinton would be in the White House. Proof is the almost two million extra votes that she had over Trump.

[mmhmm]

May 3, 2017 16:38:46 GMT -5 mroped said:

May 3, 2017 8:24:45 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

It wasn't Russia. It was a failure to grasp human nature.

Right that it maybe wasn't Russia but nor was the human nature. What failed Clinton was an archaic electoral setting that was created to give power to all states alike and not just to those that are heavily populated.
Otherwise Clinton would be in the White House. Proof is the almost two million extra votes that she had over Trump.

 Try closer to three million votes.

[Virgil Showlion]

May 3, 2017 15:43:33 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 3, 2017 15:05:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Wall Street is about one thing: making money. Wall Street invites speakers with the expectation that these speakers will advise them on how to make more money.

A Wall Street health conference is a conference where a speaker advises a Wall Street cabal on how to make more money in the healthcare sector. This could be through strategies for arbitrage, new kinds of derivatives or loosely collateralized securities, finding new niches for capital markets, etc.  But as Pres. Obama knows precisely jack about arbitrage, securities, and capital markets, I suspect the cabal's $400K was spent to purchase some good old fashioned government connections and insider info on Democrats' future plans for healthcare, which can be just as useful in helping the cabal to make even more money.

So thank you, Pres. Obama. Not only did you ram through the crummiest, most ill-conceived healthcare system ever devised by man--by subterfuge--in a big wet kiss to America's insurers, you're also advising Wall Street on how to profit as the whole thing collapses, for a mere $400K.

The optics may not be great, you may look like you don't give a snow leopard's fuzzy white arse about any of the values you espoused during your campaigns, but we still love you because capitalism. And because hastily selling out is just something newly-retired US presidents do.

I don't know enough about this conference to judge, but your post prompted me to find something similar done by JP Morgan. That leads me to believe its more about healthcare companies than what you believe, but again IDK.

www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2015/01/16/jp-morgan-healthcare-conference-becomes-a-shopping-mall-for-wall-street/#620840067bd5

Billions of dollar under management, pensions, endowments and foundations - with mandates to invest in life science, biotech and health companies – are in one mall-like area to gather insights on market dynamics, hearing firsthand from the movers and shakers that claim to impact the market. Strategic meetings are arranged, CEOs spread the word, and new technology licensing deals are showcased as the next big thing.

I'm sure that somewhere other than the auditorium where Pres. Obama is giving his speech, this kind of thing will be going on. That's what happens when two sides who want to do business get together.

[Value Buy]

May 3, 2017 11:59:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 3, 2017 11:46:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

We'll never know what he says behind closed doors, and he's being called out by his critics because America is so party-locked that pigs will fly before his supporters utter a bad word against their own side.

I don't consider you a party hack, hence I'm appealing to your reason.

If his taking half a million dollars to chat up a cabal of Wall Street power brokers straight out of his presidency truly doesn't bother you, if it doesn't strike you as antithetical to everything he's claimed to represent since those early days in 2007 and 2008, proclaiming hope and change for the little people, then you'll have to explain your reasoning to me.

As I see it, for anyone who still has post-election faith in his concern for the moms and pops of Main Street, he could not possibly sell out harder or faster than he just did.

Nope, good old capitalism and free market.  If GWB gets $400k in speaking fees, God bless him.  

I almost agree with you........but............although I do believe Obama to be a honest human being, and probably is not accepting this fee under anything less than honest circumstances, when the most powerful person in the world retires and accepts a payout from a cartel of big business he publicly felt was hurting American citizens, it can smack as a bribe for not rendering them harmless during his eight years in office. Remember, no one, not one of them went to jail.
Just as there is a proposal no Cabinet member may go to Wall Street, etc, for a certain amount of time, after their public service, there sh/be a law no Federal Office holder may accept speaking fees for a certain amount of time.
Let them write their books and become millionaires. Of course if the bankers buy two million copies, their is little we can do to stop the payoffs........
His month of endless vacation across the world paid for by Hollywood elite and billionaires also troubles me as a symbolic bribe and thank you, for following their desires and political agenda during his eight years too.

[Value Buy]

May 3, 2017 19:37:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 3, 2017 16:38:46 GMT -5 mroped said:

Right that it maybe wasn't Russia but nor was the human nature. What failed Clinton was an archaic electoral setting that was created to give power to all states alike and not just to those that are heavily populated.
Otherwise Clinton would be in the White House. Proof is the almost two million extra votes that she had over Trump.

 Try closer to three million votes.

The Constitution states we count Electoral votes.
She should have gone after those votes.
She did not even realize what votes counted for her

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2017 7:00:27 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 3, 2017 19:37:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

 Try closer to three million votes.

The Constitution states we count Electoral votes.
She should have gone after those votes.
She did not even realize what votes counted for her

yes, she did.

[Value Buy]

May 4, 2017 7:01:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 4, 2017 7:00:27 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The Constitution states we count Electoral votes.
She should have gone after those votes.
She did not even realize what votes counted for her

yes, she did.

If she did, she was an even more flawed candidate than anyone believed her to be. She ignored the states around the Great Lakes and let singers and actors control her campaign stops, basically in strong blue states making the celebrities the center of attention. She was an after thought to the audience, and how many middle aged or older white voters went to listen to singers they never purchased an album from in their lives?
Where were trump and Pence in the last ten days of the election cycle? Who was the center of attention at every rally
they held?
Shit, she did not even listen to Bill who pleaded with her and her campaign to go after the middle class vote. The guy may be old, but he was correct.

[Opti]

May 4, 2017 6:58:10 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 3, 2017 11:59:19 GMT -5 swamp said:

Nope, good old capitalism and free market.  If GWB gets $400k in speaking fees, God bless him.  

I almost agree with you........but............although I do believe Obama to be a honest human being, and probably is not accepting this fee under anything less than honest circumstances, when the most powerful person in the world retires and accepts a payout from a cartel of big business he publicly felt was hurting American citizens, it can smack as a bribe for not rendering them harmless during his eight years in office. Remember, no one, not one of them went to jail.
Just as there is a proposal no Cabinet member may go to Wall Street, etc, for a certain amount of time, after their public service, there sh/be a law no Federal Office holder may accept speaking fees for a certain amount of time.
Let them write their books and become millionaires. Of course if the bankers buy two million copies, their is little we can do to stop the payoffs........
His month of endless vacation across the world paid for by Hollywood elite and billionaires also troubles me as a symbolic bribe and thank you, for following their desires and political agenda during his eight years too.

I can see why you'd see it as bribes, but what really did he do for these Hollywood folks and billionaires? I think Oprah, was merely celebrating and thankful that a black man was President for 8 years. For the rest of them, IDK. If he was being feted by Goldman Sachs folks I'd be concerned, but for now, it may simply be folks with lots of money celebrating what was and escaping what is (Trump) for awhile.

[mmhmm]

May 4, 2017 7:00:27 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 3, 2017 19:37:47 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

 Try closer to three million votes.

The Constitution states we count Electoral votes.
She should have gone after those votes.
She did not even realize what votes counted for her

I'll not pretend I know what someone else realizes and what they don't, VB. I was responding to what MrOped posted. I wasn't entering the fray about popular vote vs the Electoral College vote. You chase that rabbit if you wish.

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2017 7:15:40 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 4, 2017 7:01:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, she did.

If she did, she was an even more flawed candidate than anyone believed her to be.

sobeit.

[formerroomate99]

May 3, 2017 3:15:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2017 20:45:10 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Doesn't mean someone in trump's organization didn't conspire with Russia to leak the emails.

it also doesn't mean that this didn't affect turnout.  it probably did.

therefore, the conclusions of the OP are dubious at best.

Nobody forced Hillary to set up that email server.  Nobody forced Huma to forward classified emails to her husband's laptop.  (A laptop used by someone who visits porn sites is bound to be full of viruses.) Nobody forced the DNC to ignore the FBI's warnings about the threat to their email system.  They fell for a physhing scam for crying out loud.  That's just a special kind of stupid.  Had Hillary and the DNC shown any regard for security, there wouldn't have been a FBI investigation about her emails and there wouldn't have been anything for the Russians anything to leak.  I don't remember hearing anybody crying and whining when somebody secretly taped and distributed a video of Romney saying something stupid.  

I've never had a job where this sort of foolishness wouldn't have gotten me fired, with good reason.  The fact that Hillary and Co were this careless when the nation's security is at stake makes her and her cronies unfit for command.  That is what affected turnout. Contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of people in the battleground states that know enough about computers to see that she put her political career above national security.   

[formerroomate99]

There's a difference between being a billionaire and being beholden to billionaires.

I don't feel comfortable with any political figure getting huge speaking fees from Oligarchs.  At best, the fee is payment for showing powerful people how to further game a system that is already slanted in their favor.  At worse, it is a bribe for influence.  

[mmhmm]

This isn't a matter that interests me much. However, it does seem to me rather fitting for Mr. Obama to collect $400K from Wall Street, of all places, and turn around and donate $2M to promote education for Chicago youth. Something about that strikes me as perversely fair. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Trump brilliantly put an end to the whole scheme by exposing the Obama regime's weaponization of the intelligence assets of the United States of America to the Democrat's political advantage. 

[Virgil Showlion]

May 4, 2017 14:21:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This isn't a matter that interests me much. However, it does seem to me rather fitting for Mr. Obama to collect $400K from Wall Street, of all places, and turn around and donate $2M to promote education for Chicago youth. Something about that strikes me as perversely fair. 

To hell with his charity.

This is what my Dad calls "Curious George": Cause havoc and misery, sell out your principles, then bake an old lady a pie and all the evil you've perpetrated and continue to perpetrate just... goes away.

To hell with that and to hell with Pres. Obama's "good deeds". You want to get patted on the back, sir? Let Wall Street keep their payola and donate $1.6 million to helping the people you've screwed. Or go back in time, slap your 2007 counterpart so hard he loses the ability to lie, flip-flop and sell out, and keep your bloody $2M.

Start a crowdfunding campaign pledging never to speak again in public. You'll make $15 million easy. Buy a villa in France and stay there until you die in obscurity. Please. The kids of Chicago will manage without you.

[mmhmm]

May 4, 2017 18:14:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

May 4, 2017 14:21:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

This isn't a matter that interests me much. However, it does seem to me rather fitting for Mr. Obama to collect $400K from Wall Street, of all places, and turn around and donate $2M to promote education for Chicago youth. Something about that strikes me as perversely fair. 

To hell with his charity.

This is what my Dad calls "Curious George": Cause havoc and misery, sell out your principles, then bake an old lady a pie and all the evil you've perpetrated and continue to perpetrate just... goes away.

To hell with that and to hell with Pres. Obama's "good deeds". You want to get patted on the back, sir? Let Wall Street keep their payola and donate $1.6 million to helping the people you've screwed. Or go back in time, slap your 2007 counterpart so hard he loses the ability to lie, flip-flop and sell out, and keep your bloody $2M.

Start a crowdfunding campaign pledging never to speak again in public. You'll make $15 million easy. Buy a villa in France and stay there until you die in obscurity. Please. The kids of Chicago will manage without you.

Oh, my goodness! I didn't mean to bring on apoplexy! You'll notice I did say "perversely" fair. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I mean sure, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country- but they'll be educated before they're murdered. And let's not forget that Chicago is one of the places the islamonazis would love to light one off-- which they may just be able to do thanks to Obama's $150 billion gift. 

I have a feeling that those that are dead, and those looking upon the rubble of American cities will not remember Obama's amazing charity as the gentle radioactive breeze blows...

[Virgil Showlion]

May 4, 2017 18:34:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

May 4, 2017 18:14:08 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

To hell with his charity.

This is what my Dad calls "Curious George": Cause havoc and misery, sell out your principles, then bake an old lady a pie and all the evil you've perpetrated and continue to perpetrate just... goes away.

To hell with that and to hell with Pres. Obama's "good deeds". You want to get patted on the back, sir? Let Wall Street keep their payola and donate $1.6 million to helping the people you've screwed. Or go back in time, slap your 2007 counterpart so hard he loses the ability to lie, flip-flop and sell out, and keep your bloody $2M.

Start a crowdfunding campaign pledging never to speak again in public. You'll make $15 million easy. Buy a villa in France and stay there until you die in obscurity. Please. The kids of Chicago will manage without you.

Oh, my goodness! I didn't mean to bring on apoplexy! You'll notice I did say "perversely" fair. 

It was actually Demin's post that got the bile rising in my throat, but I thank you for acknowledging the perversity all the same.

[Deleted]

May 4, 2017 7:01:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 4, 2017 7:00:27 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

The Constitution states we count Electoral votes.
She should have gone after those votes.
She did not even realize what votes counted for her

yes, she did.

Not enough, apparently.

[Opti]

May 4, 2017 18:35:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I mean sure, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country- but they'll be educated before they're murdered. And let's not forget that Chicago is one of the places the islamonazis would love to light one off-- which they may just be able to do thanks to Obama's $150 billion gift. 

I have a feeling that those that are dead, and those looking upon the rubble of American cities will not remember Obama's amazing charity as the gentle radioactive breeze blows...

Or not, if you adjust for population ... it came in 8th in 2016.

www.thetrace.org/2017/01/chicago-not-most-dangerous-city-america/

But despite the soundbites, Chicago remains in the middle of the pack when homicide is measured on a per-capita basis. In 2016, the city had a rate of 27.9 killings per 100,000 residents — half that of St. Louis, whose 188 murders amounted to 59.3 homicides per 100,000 people and preserved that city’s status as America’s murder capital. Baltimore placed second, with a homicide rate of 51.2, followed by Detroit, New Orleans, and Cleveland. “Because Chicago has so many people, it can get a murder every day, and that gets people’s attention,” John Pfaff, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, told The Trace recently. “When you focus on numbers, not rates, Chicago ends up looking worse because you forget just how big a city it is.”

[djAdvocate]

May 4, 2017 20:45:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 4, 2017 7:01:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes, she did.

Not enough, apparently.

it wasn't up to her, fortunately.

[Deleted]

May 5, 2017 3:20:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 4, 2017 20:45:12 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Not enough, apparently.

it wasn't up to her, fortunately.

I'm genuinely curious... if not her, who do you think was directing her campaign? Who was calling the shots on where to spend money and time?

It's my understanding that numerous people can make suggestions of where to do what... but the final say always rests with the candidate.