hilary knows all about classes, with her 30k a head dinner parties. she loves to rub shoulders with the highest of the highest classes. meanwhile a single mother earning less than 30k per year will keep slogging away while likely paying more taxes than hilarys dinner friends based on %. completely out of touch. but 20+ years of secret service protection will do that to you.
Anybody know what the latest reputable polls saying, and how accurate are they the day before voting?
"USA Today assembled a list of 27 multinational corporations that posted between $56 million and $4.6 billion in profits in 2015, yet got money back from the government rather than paying federal taxes. " http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/ But let's keep treating our poor single mother and her child exactly like a multi-million/billion dollar company with executives making 7,8, and even 9 figure salaries.
"When I came down, I greeted him, I shook his hand and nothing more. This is called good manners and it is not getting involved in politics..." Pope Francis http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/16/bernie-sanders-met-pope-francis/83118290/ [youtube]xkW_ZkMtmlQ[/youtube]
The latest RCP average is Clinton 53.7% Sanders 40.9% http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ork_democratic_presidential_primary-4221.html The latest 538 forecast is Clinton with a 91% of winning NY. http://fivethirtyeight.com/
If you look at the SEC filings that is simply dead wrong and they do pay a lot in taxes. Further, have you heard of carry forward losses?
it's not wrong, they are talking about "corporate income tax expense" on profits not corporate taxes which you are referring too.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/03/07/27-giant-profitable-companies-paid-no-taxes/81399094/?AID=10709313&PID=6147471&SID=in6a4gdzai000ml700dth "United Continental, which reported a $3.2 billion income tax credit in 2015 despite reporting earnings before taxes of $4.2 billion. " "Pfizer (PFE) last year, for instance, drew fire last year for a plan to merge with rival Allergan (AGN) and move its headquarters to Ireland." LMAO!!! Stupid poor single parent mom should get a better CPA and incorporate herself and her kid in Ireland!!! LMAO, so funny!!!
I really don't know what your problem is. The comment I made was about the Clinton campaign itself being condescending towards young voters. This is not just my criticism, it's David Axelrod's criticism. There's also this video clip of her implying it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtcO8ujQ5ig Statements like this are really dangerous, especially considering the high-speed information that social media provides. This is not some biased analysis, it's just looking at her campaign's strategies. StaThere are a number of reasons to believe that she is hurting her chances of a high voter turnout in November and I think she should stop that. I have no idea why you're trying to re-angle this as a fire against Sanders supporters. This is not about what Bernie supporters have said, it's about what Clinton herself has said. Just because the dems start going after all 50 states this election cycle does not mean they'll suddenly win a bunch of the red states. It means that the democratic party needs to re-embrace a lot of these states that they've abandoned and begin to re-build a lot of the state-level democratic parties. This will help them in Congress as well as future presidential races. As far as the money is concerned, you're right that it needs to concentrated in the battleground states for this election. They would likely not have enough resources in this election to do any real damage, but as far as the long term is concerned, it's better to not put all of your eggs in one basket. However, the current establishment democratic party is not a party for the working class people anyways so if they're going to change their campaign strategies, they're also going to have to re-prioritize and reject the corporatist party they've become. That's the only justification for even attempting a 50 state strategy. Having a party that looks out for the best interests of the American people is step 1, and if you can make that party successful at the grassroots level, things like campaign finance become easier through larger small donor and volunteer networks. My answer probably seems a bit confusing, but let me try to bring some clarity in that the 50 state strategy is a part of a package of reforms the the establishment needs to embrace and is not a stand alone shift.
That's a reply to my question, glynch? Heck, that was no reply at all, merely more shots taken at Ms. Clinton (and me - hope it's fun). Try again. Those voting in the Democratic primaries who are proclaiming that if Hillary gets the nod, they'll sit out the election or even vote for one of the two extremists running for the GOP nomination, have to be either ignorant of the stakes involved with the Federal judiciary and the interpretation of the US Constitution, or brutally stupid. What say you? Would you rather play the fool and sit at home on election day rather than vote for Secretary Clinton? Is your "passion" for Senator Sanders eclipsing the need of any progressive/liberal worth his or her salt to vote for the Democratic ticket in order to keep the Thomas's and Alito's, or worse, off of the Supreme Court for life, or are you "pumped" about having, as an alternative, another "Nadir" throwing the election to the extremists on the Right? Would simply sitting at home watching the returns, instead of voting for Secretary Clinton, be a reasonable alternative for you?
As a Bernie supporter who would vote for Clinton (if I were in a swing state) I challenge you to sympathize with the Bernie or Bust movement instead of assuming they're idiots. A lot of the people who say that don't feel the system represents them, and they feel that any other choice other the Bernie is just feeding the corrupt corporate political machine. A lot of them are being crushed by student loan debts, haven't had a significant rise in income in years, or are facing some sort of problem that they believe is propagated by the corporate political system. That's not to say all of them are facing some sort of crisis, but it wouldn't be crazy to venture that some of them are. I think the Clinton campaign as a whole is going to have to sympathize and significantly address this feeling, and going at it in terms of condescension is very dangerous in terms of establishing trust.
Sympathize? I voted for Senator Sanders in the Texas primary. In fact, I have a history of voting for someone other than Hillary in the primary. I picked Obama in '08, for example. What I won't do is join in the "fun" some of you are having by continuing the demonization of Hillary Clinton by the Republican Party, something they have been doing since Bill was elected to his first term. Heck, anyone recall Vince Foster? I'm surprised that I haven't seen Sanders supporters accusing her of murdering him. It was a "hot topic" back in the '90's. Hillary Clinton has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at her, and some of you (not you in particular - haven't read your posts) seem to delight in calling her a w****, a b****, corrupt, and so on. I'm sure I'm forgetting some of the crap tossed her way in this forum. It is truly a pathetic display by people who consider themselves liberal or progressive. Demonize the person who could possibly become the first woman to be President of the United States and doing it for the "good" candidate. Many of you are Senator Sanders' worst enemy. The Senator himself would be offended by much of the garbage posted here vilifying his opponent. Some of you should be ashamed.
I voted for Bernie, but won't vote for Hillary. Bernie's liberal views (with an exception for healthcare) isn't why I voted for him. I voted for him because he is a breath of fresh air. He's honest and hasn't run a very negative campaign. It doesn't mean he'll make for a good President (Jimmy Carter), but I the alternatives are natural liars.
This is not some biased analysis, it's just looking at her campaign's strategies. StaThere are a number of reasons to believe that she is hurting her chances of a high voter turnout in November and I think she should stop that. I have no idea why you're trying to re-angle this as a fire against Sanders supporters. This is not about what Bernie supporters have said, it's about what Clinton herself has said. [/quote] So when Clinton is dismissive and condescending it's a bad thing but not when Sanders supporters do it. Got it. Of course it isn't just Sanders' supporters but he and his campaign have been accused of the same thing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rue-his-deep-south-dismissal-of-black-voters/ If we're going to talk about what this might do to the general as noted in the Wash Post piece Sanders rhetoric too might hurt the party in terms of his dismissal of a large part of the Democratic Block. Nate Silver also discusses this in this piece. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...e-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/ One thing I find odd is arguing for a 50 state strategy while being so dismissive of Southern states that Clinton won. Again Sanders supporters and Sanders himself have dismissed the Deep South as being too conservative. Well if a 50 state strategy is what you're after then shouldn't those states be considered just as important as Midwestern, Western or Northern States? The argument put out for a 50 state strategy seems to me more spin to play up victories in states like UT and WY, where Democrats don't traditionally do well but Sanders won soundly. Otherwise there would be just as much discussion from the Sanders' camp regard states like MS or AL. I think I understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree, and appreciate that you're articulating your responses and making more detailed statements than just sloganeering.
