http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/us...ndraising.htmlMr. Trump has pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s noticeably scant schedule of campaign events this summer to suggest she has been hiding from the public. But Mrs. Clinton has been more than accessible to those who reside in some of the country’s most moneyed enclaves and are willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to see her. In the last two weeks of August, Mrs. Clinton raked in roughly $50 million at 22 fund-raising events, averaging around $150,000 an hour, according to a New York Times tally.
And while Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism for her failure to hold a news conference for months, she has fielded hundreds of questions from the ultrarich in places like the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills and Silicon Valley.
“It’s the old adage, you go to where the money is,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat.
Mrs. Clinton raised about $143 million in August, the campaign’s best month yet. At a single event on Tuesday in Sagaponack, N.Y., 10 people paid at least $250,000 to meet her, raising $2.5 million.
If Mr. Trump appears to be waging his campaign in rallies and network interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s second presidential bid seems to amount to a series of high-dollar fund-raisers with public appearances added to the schedule when they can be fit in. Last week, for example, she diverged just once from her packed fund-raising schedule to deliver a speech.
She's like a mrs pacman eating up all d coins and running away from her ghosts, the ghost of the dead ambassador and the ghost of all d people that died due to her email being hosted from clintonemail.com garage
She's even got the mrs pacman big round yellow suit and all
who died because she had a private server?
never ceases to amaze me how you leave easy political points on the table in favor of positions that that are barely supportable.
She took 141 million dollars for the month of August. What did Trump make?
Too busy telling other people his oponent is hiding while she makes that money.
She's like a mrs pacman eating up all d coins and running away from her ghosts, the ghost of the dead ambassador and the ghost of all d people that died due to her email being hosted from clintonemail.com garage
It would have been funny if it was...you know..even relevant to the truth.
Benghazi and the email servers aren't even correlated. lol
He's out there accepting Mexico's president's invitation to meet/talk and attending a black, evangelical church in Detroit while she's hobnobbing with Jimmy Buffett, Jon Bon Jovi and Paul McCartney and raising hundreds of millions of dollars.
It's a very good visual analogy
No, you means he's out there just taking halfcourt shots in a desperate attempt to get some votes...and failing.
The Mexico visit was a failure. Noe one wanted him there. Even the president himself showed regret.
The pandering to blacks has been rejected and seeing for what it is.
I'll give you this though, the man knows failure. Just look at his history. You cant name me one thing he's done by himself.
Must feel good having a daddy that leaves you 100 million to "fend for yourself." What a terrible life.
I got a laugh out of it. Oh well, whoever gets elected is going to be a one term president either way.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ackfiring.htmlBut just as damaging as the medium is Trump’s message itself. Its heart is familiar to those accustomed to conservative agitprop on race: Black folks are dupes for a Democratic Party that has enslaved them on a “plantation” where they give up their freedom and any chance at dignity or equality in exchange for the idle life of welfare beneficiaries. According to this revisionist theory, the modern welfare state is just a continuation of slavery and Jim Crow, with the Democratic Party serving as the continuous oppressor from antebellum days until now, and Republicans offering a continuous option of liberation via self-sufficiency and capitalism.
As Jamelle Bouie observes, the “plantation” theory may be comforting to Republicans who want to deny their party’s incorporation of white racists from 1964 on, but it’s deeply and inherently insulting to African-Americans:
Beyond incoherent, the ideas underlying Trump’s narrative are racist, full stop. If “plantation” theory is true, then black voters are the mindless drones of American politics. Nefarious Democrats gave them a taste of government, and they never abandoned the hand that fed them. White voters, by contrast, are active citizens—noble republicans in the best tradition of the founders. It’s ironic: For as much as they disdain Democrats as the real racists, it’s the proponents of plantation theory who echo the arguments and propaganda of the pro-Southern, anti-emancipation Democrats of the Civil War era. “The Freedman’s Bureau!” sang one poster from the 1866 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, advocating on behalf of Hiester Clymer and his white-supremacist platform. “An agency to keep the Negro in idleness at the expense of the white man.”
To put it another way, it’s probably not a coincidence that Trump’s view of black people as lazy freedom-despising dependents living in a ish prison built of their own pathologies happens to coincide with that of white racists everywhere, past and present. Black people do tend to notice that.
A bit of context.
Trumps remarks are horribly condescending.
His outreach has backfired, due to its ham-handedness and vacuousness.
His outreach "backfired"? He closed a double digit lead in one week. If that's "backfire", 100% of rational thinking, unbiased people will take that all day.
It backfired, because the people it was supposed/claimed to be reaching for found it stupid and insulting.
LOL changing the subject
So:
In that poll data, did it show a shift in black votes? (which was my point)
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...50/Red-HerringRed Herring
Ignoratio elenchi
(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, smokescreen, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation, judgmental language [form of])
Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.
More logic fail.
I don't think he was trying to pick up black or mexican votes. He's trying to make suburban housewives feel like it's ok to vote for him. He's up to 83% Republican support in the polls. That's where the tightening has come from. He's got to first reach Romney levels before he can move beyond them, being the thinking. Trump isn't the candidate to get a W for the Republican's though, with the baked in advantage the Dems enjoy with the electoral college. The BEST he can do is Romney. His only shot is Hillary loses a bunch of Obama voters, but 4 years of positive demographic trend make that a tough get.
Maybe one of you Hillary fans can explain something to me.
We now find out that Hillary had 13? devices, some of which they took a hammer to and so are unrecoverable. Does Comey not see destruction of cell phones by hammer as an unusual occurrence and possible obstruction of justice? Who does that with cell phones that they don't use anymore? I toss mine in some drawer with all my miscellaneous stuff - not take a hammer to it. Then he says she's not technologically sophisticated enough - but she knows to use BleachBit and a hammer on cell phones?
Sarbanes-Oxley reads as follows:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, do ent, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under le 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this le, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Is that really the font it's written in?
I know my sight is going, and I'm wearing trifocals now, but that font is a bit much
That is a distinct possibility. I think you are giving him a bit too much credit.
How exactly does that apply here?
Be specific.
By him, I mean his team. He doesn't have much of a clue.
The GOP said after the past two elections that they were going to get better candidates while the dems outside of Barack have produced Gore, Kerry, and Clinton.
To think it is going to change without serious electoral reform is delusional.
knowingly is the operative word. the do ents in question were not properly tagged and she didn't originate them. If they were really concerned about security they would find where they originated but we all know they don't give a about that.
I think McCain and Romney would both beat Clinton.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
