PDA

View Full Version : The Dems can pick a "winner!"



Peter1469
08-05-2015, 06:53 AM
The Dems can pick a "winner!" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/04/hillary-clinton-s-mega-donors-are-also-funding-jeb-bush.html)

Establishment Hillary donators are helping fund Jeb. I wonder why? :shocked:


For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/topics/2016.html)—as long as the president’s name is Clinton (http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/hillary-clinton.html) or Bush (http://www.thedailybeast.com/features/2015/2016-gop.html).


More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush’s and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush’s and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.


After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.



Jeb or Hillary, no change from Obama.

And the beat goes on.

AeonPax
08-05-2015, 06:56 AM
`
`
The more things change, the more they remain the same.

PolWatch
08-05-2015, 06:56 AM
If we could get the list of donors to PAC's we would be able to see who the donors really support. Publicly they can donate to both but privately they can buy who will obey their orders. Ain't our system grand?

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:08 AM
Jeb is SLIGHTLY better for the country than Hillary.

But as another RINO he would give the conservative brand a bad name the same way W, McCain and Romney did.

Cigar
08-05-2015, 07:31 AM
Wow ... 60?

The last Two (2) Elections had a Voter Margin of 9.5 MILLION and 5 MILLION

I'm sure when it comes to real people Voting, the Pollers will be surprised, for the Third (3rd) time in a row.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:35 AM
Wow ... 60?

The last Two (2) Elections had a Voter Margin of 9.5 MILLION and 5 MILLION

I'm sure when it comes to real people Voting, the Pollers will be surprised, for the Third (3rd) time in a row.

Obumer suppressed the white conservative vote by attacking the Tea Party through the IRS.

But the dems were good at getting out their voters.

Safety
08-05-2015, 07:36 AM
Obumer suppressed the white conservative vote by attacking the Tea Party through the IRS.

But the dems were good at getting out their voters.

How?

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:37 AM
How?

Denying them tax exempt status.

PolWatch
08-05-2015, 07:45 AM
Denying them tax exempt status.

Could you explain how that would stop them from actually voting in an election?

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:48 AM
Could you explain how that would stop them from actually voting in an election?

To you?

No.

please don't post to me or about me unless it is official business.

Safety
08-05-2015, 07:50 AM
Denying them tax exempt status.

How did that suppress the white conservative vote? You are not supposed to get a tax-exempt status for political parties, unless you are applying for a 527. Even then, how many were denied?

Safety
08-05-2015, 07:51 AM
To you?

No.

please don't post to me or about me unless it is official business.

Tired of getting your arguments shut down?

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:53 AM
How did that suppress the white conservative vote? You are not supposed to get a tax-exempt status for political parties, unless you are applying for a 527. Even then, how many were denied?

Groups can be political as long as they aren't partisan.

It prevented the Tea Party from raising money to buy messages on TV to compete with the pro democrat union partisans.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:54 AM
Tired of getting your arguments shut down?

Something like that.

One minute the beautiful people want to argue and the next they want to punish.

PolWatch
08-05-2015, 07:54 AM
To you?

No.

please don't post to me or about me unless it is official business.

no. If you can't provide an answer to the question just say so. No need to don your victim cape.

Cigar
08-05-2015, 07:55 AM
How?

That Crazy Republican Uncle speaks again ... :laugh:

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 07:57 AM
no. If you can't provide an answer to the question just say so. No need to don your victim cape.

Let me repeat.

Unless its official business within your power as a mod don't post to me or about me.

Safety
08-05-2015, 07:59 AM
Groups can be political as long as they aren't partisan.

It prevented the Tea Party from raising money to buy messages on TV to compete with the pro democrat union partisans.

So, your anger should be directed towards the GOP for not providing the funds.

Safety
08-05-2015, 08:01 AM
Something like that.

One minute the beautiful people want to argue and the next they want to punish.

I think you misunderstood, when I said "shut-down" I was referring to having your silly positions debunked.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 08:02 AM
So, your anger should be directed towards the GOP for not providing the funds.

The GOP is a Washington establishment party that the Tea Party is trying to reform.

So they get no help from that organization.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 08:03 AM
I think you misunderstood, when I said "shut-down" I was referring to having your silly positions debunked.

No comment.

I have told PolWatch not to post ABOUT me and I will do the same.

Safety
08-05-2015, 08:03 AM
The GOP is a Washington establishment party that the Tea Party is trying to reform.

So they get no help from that organization.

Sure, that's what the meme says, tell me again which candidate you would vote for if it was between Bush and Clinton? Take your time.

Safety
08-05-2015, 08:04 AM
No comment.

I have told PolWatch not to post ABOUT me and I will do the same.

.....open forum.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 08:04 AM
Sure, that's what the meme says, tell me again which candidate you would vote for if it was between Bush and Clinton? Take your time.

It would be Bush in a photo finish of bad choices.

Safety
08-05-2015, 08:05 AM
It would be Bush in a photo find of bad choices.

/discussion.

Peter1469
08-05-2015, 08:06 AM
To you?

No.

please don't post to me or about me unless it is official business.

Denied.

Grow up.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 08:06 AM
.....open forum.

Are you the bait?

I bite on your hook and the beautiful people reel me in?

I have no comments good or bad to make about PolWatch.

Mac-7
08-05-2015, 08:08 AM
Denied.

Grow up.

What is denied?

Safety
08-05-2015, 08:19 AM
Are you the bait?

I bite on your hook and the beautiful people reel me in?

I have no comments good or bad to make about PolWatch.

Stop being melodramatic.

del
08-05-2015, 09:33 AM
To you?

No.

please don't post to me or about me unless it is official business.

tissue, muffy?

maineman
08-05-2015, 09:59 AM
Denying them tax exempt status.

Could you explain TO ME how that would stop them from actually voting in an election?

Mac-7
08-06-2015, 12:08 PM
Could you explain TO ME how that would stop them from actually voting in an election?

It would deny them the money to reach potential voters and inform them on the issues from the Tea Party point of view.

Ransom
08-06-2015, 04:14 PM
If we could get the list of donors to PAC's we would be able to see who the donors really support. Publicly they can donate to both but privately they can buy who will obey their orders. Ain't our system grand?

https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D

Ransom
08-06-2015, 04:14 PM
Could you explain TO ME how that would stop them from actually voting in an election?

Lance! Where have you been, Steam Train?

magicmike
08-06-2015, 04:17 PM
The Dems can pick a "winner!" (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/04/hillary-clinton-s-mega-donors-are-also-funding-jeb-bush.html)

Establishment Hillary donators are helping fund Jeb. I wonder why? :shocked:



Jeb or Hillary, no change from Obama.

And the beat goes on.

Stranger things happen. After all, the Koch's donate to gay causes.

magicmike
08-06-2015, 04:18 PM
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?disp=D

That doesn't include the billions of Republican dark money.

Ransom
08-06-2015, 04:20 PM
That doesn't include the billions of Republican dark money.

Could we see some proof f your ridiculous assertions?

No?

unfounded. As is usual with you.

Ransom
08-06-2015, 04:21 PM
Stranger things happen. After all, the Koch's donate to gay causes.

What's a 'gay cause', Mike? Are there 'straight causes' as well?

Can't make this up

magicmike
08-07-2015, 04:10 PM
Could we see some proof f your ridiculous assertions?

No?

unfounded. As is usual with you.

Citizen's United. Even the very conservative Business insider gets it.


House Republicans are actively working to protect dark-money groups, inserting a provision into a spending bill last month to protect them from new disclosure requirements. But there is a simple way that President Obama can address the issue of dark money and advance the cause of transparency. The president should sign an executive order requiring federal contractors to disclose their contributions to dark-money groups.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/dark-money-house-republicans-protecting-2015-7#ixzz3iALByHKi