<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We don't support <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz">@tedcruz</a> or his super lame ad using our music. <a href="https://t.co/FhLl8YRxs2">https://t.co/FhLl8YRxs2</a></p>— Geto Boys (@TheGetoBoys) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheGetoBoys/status/698158878484094976">February 12, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
[youtube]U042MZx83U8[/youtube] This is a good Republican ad. Funny, though, that Trump's attacks on Muslims and Mexicans are left out (though they were part of Jeb's stump speech in NH).
I thought this was pretty funny. the Clinton campaign should actually embrace this like the GW Bush campaign embraced the Will Ferrell impression of him.
Some OG stuff right here. http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/ Cross-linking weird arms deals as Sec. of State with donations to the Clinton family foundation. Yuck. Smells terrible, and I care about it a lot more than her dumb private server.
Pretty old article. Similar one here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...mpaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/ You cannot hold high role in the US government, have aspiration for president and not realize the conflict of interest shown here. The DEM is playing with fire this election cycle. If not for the GOP going crazy, the DEM would have a solid chance of losing.
Salon is a pro-Sanders cheer section these days, quality of that site really seems to have degraded in the last 5-10 years. Too much competition I guess. Now it seems kind of one step above a Huffington post style content farm/clickbait hell.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KgCP9vOUd1o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Nah, it should say something like: Cohete Rojo is a crackpot, see eg "global warming is fake", inter alia.
I agree it doesn't smell good and would be willing to learn more. There are some questions though is about what exactly are the ties to the Clinton Foundation to the Clinton's personal enrichment. My understanding is that funds from the foundation cannot be used for the Clinton political campaign. Further what sort of laws are there that govern the use of the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative funds? I'm not going to deny that the Clintons are slimy and have played fast and loose with ethical standards. What I have yet to see is any solid evidence that the Clintons have clearly broken any laws or any direct quid pro quo.
They used to have a weekly Garrison Keillor column; that, Cary Tennis and Heather Hvarilesky were enough to keep me on board until the Shockwake Flash autoplay nonsense. A lot of websites for long form journalism seem to be both buried in spam and a little more on the nose nowadays in terms of partisan factionalism, as opposed to just ideological or philosophical bias, and really in the weeds in terms of attacking pundits and talk show hosts as opposed to policies and officials. This is where overseas publications/sites like Economist, Guardian and even dawn.com get a lot more palatable.
