Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[varwoche]

Look it up yourself if you don't believe that shills are among us.

The notion there are paid campaigners working this sleepy Internet backwater is positively hilarious.

Oh dear!

 

[The Big Dog]

The notion there are paid campaigners working this sleepy Internet backwater is positively hilarious.

Oh dear!

I'm not suggesting that Brock is getting his money's worth!

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Protester confronts Hillary on rope line: ‘You’re a murderer!’

Hillary Clinton received a brutal reception from Latinos in Los Angeles on Thursday.

In addition to being driven from the overflow stage after speaking less than one minute, Clinton was confronted by a man holding a banner along the rope line of the rally inside.

While much of what he was yelling was intelligible, he could be heard calling her a “murderer.”

Hillary campaign staff and supporters could be seen pulling down his sign and pushing him away from the rope line.

He was elbowed before being bear hugged and led away.

http://theamericanmirror.com/protester-confronts-hillary-on-rope-line-youre-a-murderer/

#LatinosAgainstHillary

 

[uke2se]

#LatinosAgainstHillary

When do you plan to start posting something other than short snippets from news articles and twitter hashtags? You realize you have more than 140 characters to work with here, right?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

When do you plan to start posting something other than short snippets from news articles and twitter hashtags? You realize you have more than 140 characters to work with here, right?

Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Lacks A Simple, Clear Economic Message

"Coming up with a clear economic message isn't just a problem for Hillary Clinton. It's a problem for Democrats in general. In Celinda Lake's polls, Democrats are consistently behind Republicans on the issue of the economy. In recent general election polls, where Clinton beats Trump handily in the horse race, the economy is the only issue where he beats her. And the economy is THE No. 1 issue. Democrats have never won a presidential election when they're losing on the economy."

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/07/47703...clinton-lacks-a-simple-clear-economic-message

#GoofyWarren

 

[uke2se]

Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Lacks A Simple, Clear Economic Message

"Coming up with a clear economic message isn't just a problem for Hillary Clinton. It's a problem for Democrats in general. In Celinda Lake's polls, Democrats are consistently behind Republicans on the issue of the economy. In recent general election polls, where Clinton beats Trump handily in the horse race, the economy is the only issue where he beats her. And the economy is THE No. 1 issue. Democrats have never won a presidential election when they're losing on the economy."

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/07/47703...clinton-lacks-a-simple-clear-economic-message

#GoofyWarren

I'll take that as 'NEVER!'. Troll on.

 

[Fudbucker]

I'll take that as 'NEVER!'. Troll on.

This isn't trolling. The GOP beats the Democrats on handling the economy. The economy is slowing down- job creation and GDP have been low. A bad economy hurts the incumbent party and helps the outsider.

 

[uke2se]

This isn't trolling. The GOP beats the Democrats on handling the economy. The economy is slowing down- job creation and GDP have been low. A bad economy hurts the incumbent party and helps the outsider.

He's not discussing the issues. He's posting hashtags. He's trolling.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

This isn't trolling. The GOP beats the Democrats on handling the economy. The economy is slowing down- job creation and GDP have been low. A bad economy hurts the incumbent party and helps the outsider.

"Democrats have never won a presidential election when they're losing on the economy."

That spells bad news for Crooked Hillary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This isn't trolling. The GOP beats the Democrats on handling the economy. The economy is slowing down- job creation and GDP have been low. A bad economy hurts the incumbent party and helps the outsider.

Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close

As the historical record shows, from economic growth and job creation to stock market performance and just about every other indicator of the health of American capitalism, the modern U.S. economy has almost always done better under Democratic presidents. Despite GOP mythology to the contrary, America generally gained more jobs and grew faster when taxes were higher (even much higher) and income inequality lower.

Or did I miss more sarcasm?


Hmmm, guess I did. Think I'll leave this up here for Mr Arrows.

 

[The Big Dog]

He's not discussing the issues. He's posting hashtags. He's trolling.

You aren't discussing the issues either, so......

 

[sunmaster14]

Which party is best for the economy? It's not even close

That's because there's a multiyear lag between policy changes and economic effects. If you incorporate that lag, then Democratic administrations don't look so good. Regardless, there's not enough data to be meaningful. In addition, an administration has to work with Congress, so it can't take all of the credit, nor should it take all of the blame, for the economy on its watch.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Hillary Clinton Nicknames Donald Trump the ‘Presumptuous Nominee’

Donald Trump has been known to assign nicknames to his rival presidential candidates. But now it appears he’s getting a taste of his own medicine -- from Hillary Clinton.

During a campaign event in Oakland, California, on Friday at La Escuelita Elementary School, the Democratic presidential front-runner prescribed a new name for the man who is being called the Republican presumptive nominee: The “presumptuous nominee.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hill...-trump-presumptuous-nominee/story?id=38945606

Needless to say, Hillary clearly has no knack for it; whereas, Trump is the reigning virtuoso.

Don't quit your day job Hillary, in a few short months you'll be back working at Goldman Sachs.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's because there's a multiyear lag between policy changes and economic effects. If you incorporate that lag, then Democratic administrations don't look so good. Regardless, there's not enough data to be meaningful. In addition, an administration has to work with Congress, so it can't take all of the credit, nor should it take all of the blame, for the economy on its watch.

Right, the Pubbies really get credit for all the good years and the Democrats get blamed for all the bad years.

Tell me, is this an eight year lag?

 

[uke2se]

Needless to say, Hillary clearly has no knack for it; whereas, Trump is the reigning virtuoso.

Don't quit your day job Hillary, in a few short months you'll be back working at Goldman Sachs.

I'm buying up a supply of humble pie for you. Then again, once Hillary is elected, you'll just find something else to troll about.

 

[Mader Levap]

I notice that the Shillaries on the site have abandoned the Bernie threads and now are attacking trump.

It is because Bernie already lost. Only reason to be in bernie threads now is for entertainment caused by berniebot denialfest.

The notion there are paid campaigners working this sleepy Internet backwater is positively hilarious.

There are loons from other parts of this board that use same logic: they accuse anyone denying apollo hoax (or whatever conspiracy nonsense they spout) of being goverment shill. Why? For thrill of feeling that they are sufficiently important to warrant being stalked by disinfo agents.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is because Bernie already lost.

Exactly. He might get a number of wins, in fact he could win all the way to California, and even win California, but it's highly unlikely to do enough to get him even close to taking the Nomination.

He needs 30-point wins in every State left to just end up equal with Clinton in the pledged delegates. To over come her Super lead, he'd need to be getting up to 60 point wins in every State.

The Reality of it is that even if he wins West Virginia 75-25, Clinton still gets 7 delegates. If she can take the rest of the Supers, she only needs 6 more Delegates to get the 2383 she needs. The Math is clear Sanders simply can't win, and most previous candidates would have accepted that and dropped out long ago.

 

[The Big Dog]

There are loons from other parts of this board that use same logic: they accuse anyone denying apollo hoax (or whatever conspiracy nonsense they spout) of being goverment shill. Why? For thrill of feeling that they are sufficiently important to warrant being stalked by disinfo agents.

Lolz, you know that Brock's Pac has ADMITTED to paying internet trolls to shill for Hillary, right?

 

[Mader Levap]

The Math is clear Sanders simply can't win, and most previous candidates would have accepted that and dropped out long ago.

I have no problem with Bernie continuing campaign (it would be instructive how close he got), but with way how he does it. He burned his chance to be Hillary's vicepresident (assuming he ever had it).

The notion there are paid campaigners working this sleepy Internet backwater is positively hilarious.

There are loons from other parts of this board that use same logic: they accuse anyone denying apollo hoax (or whatever conspiracy nonsense they spout) of being goverment shill. Why? For thrill of feeling that they are sufficiently important to warrant being stalked by disinfo agents.

Lolz, you know that Brock's Pac has ADMITTED to paying internet trolls to shill for Hillary, right?

Aren't you obtuse. My context was varwoche's notion about (im)plausibility of campaigners working on this very forum. But hey, whatever allows you to feel important.

 

[Fudbucker]

Exactly. He might get a number of wins, in fact he could win all the way to California, and even win California, but it's highly unlikely to do enough to get him even close to taking the Nomination.

He needs 30-point wins in every State left to just end up equal with Clinton in the pledged delegates. To over come her Super lead, he'd need to be getting up to 60 point wins in every State.

The Reality of it is that even if he wins West Virginia 75-25, Clinton still gets 7 delegates. If she can take the rest of the Supers, she only needs 6 more Delegates to get the 2383 she needs. The Math is clear Sanders simply can't win, and most previous candidates would have accepted that and dropped out long ago.

Has any previous candidate ever run against another candidate embroiled in an FBI investigation? No? Then this situation is unique and what other candidates have done has no bearing.