Hillary's lead over Bernie evaporating

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136

You don't read links posted by other people, do you?

Of course not, because they often contain contain contrary information you'd rather not deal with, like this-

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VqoauE-DCCl

Charity Navigator is quoted & linked in the Factcheck piece I offered earlier. I even referred Hugo Drax back to it when he posted the same link as your own.

You seem to think that even an accusation that's been withdrawn must be true because you want it to be.

Colbert's observations about Truthiness are more profound than you can even begin to appreciate.
 

Spungo

Diamond Member
Jul 22, 2012
3,217
2
81
Clinton's record is just fine and she's a better general election candidate than Sanders is.
This is how we know you're trolling. Who says stuff like this? Sanders might have some silly ideas, but he seems like someone I would trust to babysit kids or run a lemonade stand. Hillary is basically a female version of Dick Cheney. She would probably steal blood from a blood bank if she had the opportunity. She's that bad.


It's unlikely that someone that far out of the mainstream from a policy perspective will win. That's really the beginning and end of it for me.
Obama won by promising to change things because we were sick of the Bush bullshit. That's generally what happens when a country is in a severe economic depression. That's also the appeal Trump has. When times get rough, people get extreme. This isn't really a new concept. The main goal of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WW2 was to prevent political extremism from popping up again. WW2 itself was caused by economic hardship; guys like Hitler never rise to power when the economy is doing great.

There are a lot of angry Americans just barely hanging on, so guys like Bernie and Trump have widespread appeal.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,525
54,359
136
This is how we know you're trolling. Who says stuff like this? Sanders might have some silly ideas, but he seems like someone I would trust to babysit kids or run a lemonade stand. Hillary is basically a female version of Dick Cheney. She would probably steal blood from a blood bank if she had the opportunity. She's that bad.

You know I'm trolling because you don't like Hillary Clinton. Makes sense, haha. Basically everyone says 'stuff like this'. If you look at my post as a whole I'm saying that she's a better candidate than he is because candidates who are as ideologically extreme as Sanders rarely win presidential elections. It's not impossible, but you're working against the odds.

I like Sanders just fine and would be perfectly happy with him being president. I'm not foolish enough to ignore the fact that he would be a weak candidate, however.

Obama won by promising to change things because we were sick of the Bush bullshit. That's generally what happens when a country is in a severe economic depression. That's also the appeal Trump has. When times get rough, people get extreme. This isn't really a new concept. The main goal of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after WW2 was to prevent political extremism from popping up again. WW2 itself was caused by economic hardship; guys like Hitler never rise to power when the economy is doing great.

There are a lot of angry Americans just barely hanging on, so guys like Bernie and Trump have widespread appeal.

So by 'widespread appeal' for Trump you mean he is the candidate with the largest net negatives of anyone running for president?

Obama's election simply reinforces my previous point. He was a moderately liberal democrat, far to the right of Sanders and slightly to the left of Clinton. The American political spectrum tilts right as a whole, which is why Republican candidates can generally have further right DW-NOMINATE scores than Democrats can to the left.

 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,878
4,872
136
If Bill or Barrack were in pretty much any other country in the first world they would be in the Conservative party. Only in America would anyone consider either of them "liberal". Things like Obamacare and free trade are policies of a conservative. If you're wondering what a Liberal would do, it would be single payer in the place of Obama/Romneycare and tight regulations in the place of free trade. Ain't no party in congress with those goals.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,525
54,359
136
If Bill or Barrack were in pretty much any other country in the first world they would be in the Conservative party. Only in America would anyone consider either of them "liberal". Things like Obamacare and free trade are policies of a conservative. If you're wondering what a Liberal would do, it would be single payer in the place of Obama/Romneycare and tight regulations in the place of free trade. Ain't no party in congress with those goals.

Liberalism and trade protectionism aren't nevessarily related. I mean by that logic North Korea has a super liberal economy. Not to mention even if it was it would still be a bad idea.

The affordable care act is more conservative than single payer but significantly more liberal than what we had before.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
If Bill or Barrack were in pretty much any other country in the first world they would be in the Conservative party. Only in America would anyone consider either of them "liberal". Things like Obamacare and free trade are policies of a conservative. If you're wondering what a Liberal would do, it would be single payer in the place of Obama/Romneycare and tight regulations in the place of free trade. Ain't no party in congress with those goals.

What a Liberal really does is attempt to make the best of reality & not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

We're better than conservatives at recognizing unobtainium for what it is. It's better to achieve the possible than to insist on the impossible. Leave absolutism to the radicals on the Right.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Meanwhile, !89% of expenditures go to actual charity-

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Might want to compare that to some of the darling charities of the Right, like the Wounded Warrior project whose expenses on actual charity are only ~60% f what they spend-

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12842#.VqlsVU-DCCk

They love whooping it up at lavish fundraisers.

Amazing how shitty a charity can be & still get a 3 star rating, huh?
Pretty telling that you use CharityWatch for the Clintons but Charity Navigator for Wounded Warrior. Charity Navigator, like the other reliable charity watchdog groups, does not rate the Clintons' foundation because of irregularities and lack of transparency. Funny how CharityWatch, the watchdog group the other watchdog groups do not consider reliable because of their undisclosed "special sauce" method of rating charities, can somehow determine that precisely 89% of the foundation's contributions went to "charity" when the other groups cannot even roughly determine this percentage.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
What a Liberal really does is attempt to make the best of reality & not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

We're better than conservatives at recognizing unobtainium for what it is. It's better to achieve the possible than to insist on the impossible. Leave absolutism to the radicals on the Right.

That's just stupid. Republicans wanted to invade Iran but they settled for Iraq.

Hillary though, she'll make sure we bomb the shit out of lots of countries. In reality. Absolutely.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
Pretty telling that you use CharityWatch for the Clintons but Charity Navigator for Wounded Warrior. Charity Navigator, like the other reliable charity watchdog groups, does not rate the Clintons' foundation because of irregularities and lack of transparency. Funny how CharityWatch, the watchdog group the other watchdog groups do not consider reliable because of their undisclosed "special sauce" method of rating charities, can somehow determine that precisely 89% of the foundation's contributions went to "charity" when the other groups cannot even roughly determine this percentage.

Charity Watch puts Wounded Warrior even deeper in the muck-

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/wounded-warrior-project/559

Go figure, huh?

Charity Navigator didn't say the Clinton Foundation had irregularities & lack of transparency, did they? Of course not. It's just your negative spin on what they did say. They said their model, their tool, doesn't fit the Clinton Foundation & that's it.

I should have realized you'd be so deliberately obtuse that I need to quote them-

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

OTOH, Charity Watch seems to think that their method can accurately evaluate the Clinton Foundation so they do.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
That's just stupid. Republicans wanted to invade Iran but they settled for Iraq.

The Neocons wanted to invade all of them. What's your point?

Hillary though, she'll make sure we bomb the shit out of lots of countries. In reality. Absolutely.

Lemme see that crystal ball, OK?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Charity Watch puts Wounded Warrior even deeper in the muck-

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/wounded-warrior-project/559

Go figure, huh?

Charity Navigator didn't say the Clinton Foundation had irregularities & lack of transparency, did they? Of course not. It's just your negative spin on what they did say. They said their model, their tool, doesn't fit the Clinton Foundation & that's it.

I should have realized you'd be so deliberately obtuse that I need to quote them-

OTOH, Charity Watch seems to think that their method can accurately evaluate the Clinton Foundation so they do.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities. The 23 charities on the list include the Rev. Al Sharpton’s troubled National Action Network, which is cited for failing to pay payroll taxes for several years.

Other nonprofit experts are asking hard questions about the Clinton Foundation’s tax filings in the wake of recent reports that the Clintons traded influence for donations.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director.

In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Braverman abruptly left the foundation earlier this year, after a falling-out with the old Clinton guard over reforms he wanted to impose at the charity, Politico reported. Last month, Donna Shalala, a former secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, was hired to replace Braverman.

Nine other executives received salaries over $100,000 in 2013, tax filings show.

The nonprofit came under fire last week following reports that Hillary Clinton, while she was secretary of state, signed off on a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States. Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired a Canadian firm controlled by Frank Giustra, a friend of Bill Clinton’s and member of the foundation board, who has pledged over $130 million to the Clinton family charity.

The group also failed to disclose millions of dollars it received in foreign donations from 2010 to 2012 and is hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings last week.
Failure to disclose millions in foreign donations and "hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings" sure sounds like "irregularities & lack of transparency" to me. But I understand it might look different from the depths of Hillary's bowels.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Remember, during the Clinton administration the Clinton's shook things up quite a bit with their attempt at national healthcare.
-snip-

Revision of history.

Look up Ted Kennedy. He hasn't been dead that long.

Fern
 
Last edited:

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Dem's don't seem to be real happy with their choices, or at least one of them.

Iowa Voter Registrations. Notice the Dem's have significantly fewer registrations in 2016 vs 2007, and fewer registrations than the GOP which they had more registrations than in 2007. I think the Dems are abandoning Hillary.

This just corresponds too closely with many posts / statements / comments I've seen where left leaning types simply will not vote for Hillary, keeping in mind there were polls where some 20% of Dems said they would go GOP if Hillary were nominated.

Then there's this last second media assault on Sanders that seems to be having a Trump effect, causing a backlash of anger right at the moment Sanders needs it.

I think Sanders is about to have a blowout win in Iowa. Let's see...


http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/28/iowa-voter-registration-data-point-ted-cruz-victory-iowa/


Jan. 2007

Dem: 609,633
GOP: 590,187


Jan. 2016 (one month out)

Dem: 584,111
GOP: 612,112
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
Dem's don't seem to be real happy with their choices, or at least one of them.

Iowa Voter Registrations. Notice the Dem's have significantly fewer registrations in 2016 vs 2007, and fewer registrations than the GOP which they had more registrations than in 2007. I think the Dems are abandoning Hillary.

This just corresponds too closely with many posts / statements / comments I've seen where left leaning types simply will not vote for Hillary, keeping in mind there were polls where some 20% of Dems said they would go GOP if Hillary were nominated.

Then there's this last second media assault on Sanders that seems to be having a Trump effect, causing a backlash of anger right at the moment Sanders needs it.

I think Sanders is about to have a blowout win in Iowa. Let's see...


http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/28/iowa-voter-registration-data-point-ted-cruz-victory-iowa/


Jan. 2007

Dem: 609,633
GOP: 590,187


Jan. 2016 (one month out)

Dem: 584,111
GOP: 612,112

Iowa means nearly nothing, they rarely "pick" the winner.
 

Blanky

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2014
2,457
12
46
Clinton is my second choice of the candidates. I everything she says is 100% purely political calculations. She seems like the type that will be concerned about staying in office rather than fighting the system.
She seems like that because it is exactly, precisely who she is. She is calculating and only wants the office to mark it off on a check list. She doesn't give a wet shit about a single person in this thread.

Bernie is half nuts but at least she seems to care about his principles.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

Failure to disclose millions in foreign donations and "hurriedly refiling five years’ worth of tax returns after reporters raised questions about the discrepancies in its filings" sure sounds like "irregularities & lack of transparency" to me. But I understand it might look different from the depths of Hillary's bowels.

More spin from a notorious right wing rag. If the foundation were trying to hide something they sure as Hell wouldn't have posted the information on their website & in their publications, would they?

Among other amendments, the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments, between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns, although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239

It's all just another version of Benghazi.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Dem's don't seem to be real happy with their choices, or at least one of them.

Iowa Voter Registrations. Notice the Dem's have significantly fewer registrations in 2016 vs 2007, and fewer registrations than the GOP which they had more registrations than in 2007. I think the Dems are abandoning Hillary.

This just corresponds too closely with many posts / statements / comments I've seen where left leaning types simply will not vote for Hillary, keeping in mind there were polls where some 20% of Dems said they would go GOP if Hillary were nominated.

Then there's this last second media assault on Sanders that seems to be having a Trump effect, causing a backlash of anger right at the moment Sanders needs it.

I think Sanders is about to have a blowout win in Iowa. Let's see...


http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/28/iowa-voter-registration-data-point-ted-cruz-victory-iowa/


Jan. 2007

Dem: 609,633
GOP: 590,187


Jan. 2016 (one month out)

Dem: 584,111
GOP: 612,112

That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is young people in Iowa aren't going out to register as Democrats to caucus for Bernie.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is young people in Iowa aren't going out to register as Democrats to caucus for Bernie.

That's possible, like I said we'll see. If it's the former in Iowa, it'll probably be the same most everywhere. The latter, same.

Of course the 3rd choice, that Dems just don't like either candidate, might be a precursor to the general election.
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,934
1,591
126
Agreed. What we're seeing is a lot of Repub trolling in an attempt to convince Dems to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election than Hillary.

The OP probably wouldn't vote for a Dem with a gun held to his head but he'll tell us which Dem we should vote for. There's a lot of that bullshit going around.

Hmmm...I wonder if any Democrats are trolling in attempt to convince Republicans to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
Hmmm...I wonder if any Democrats are trolling in attempt to convince Republicans to nominate a candidate more likely to lose in the general election.

If there are it's certainly not as blatant as the OP.

It's also unnecessary given the mien of the Repub hopefuls. They're tearing each other to pieces. Whoever wins gets crushed by Hillary in the general election.

Trump? Cruz? Rubio?

Bring it. America is too good for any of them to become President. We're not that stupid.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,674
2,273
146
The mere existence of this thread illustrates the abject weakness of Clinton's candidacy. She's not seen as a shoo-in now because she's not terribly likable, doesn't exude leadership qualities, and has no substantial record of accomplishment. A candidate might get by with only two of those three things, but to be lacking all of them must secretly terrify her supporters. I think men are going to turn away from her in droves not because they would never vote for a woman, but because she radiates that outdated, man-hating strain of feminism made popular by Gloria Steinem, you know, the one that needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
The mere existence of this thread illustrates the abject weakness of Clinton's candidacy. She's not seen as a shoo-in now because she's not terribly likable, doesn't exude leadership qualities, and has no substantial record of accomplishment. A candidate might get by with only two of those three things, but to be lacking all of them must secretly terrify her supporters. I think men are going to turn away from her in droves not because they would never vote for a woman, but because she radiates that outdated, man-hating strain of feminism made popular by Gloria Steinem, you know, the one that needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

Ever deeper into the pit of denial, huh?

What this thread & the constant Hillary bashing illustrates is the desperation of Repubs to face somebody who isn't Hillary in the general election.

She'll kick their ass & they know it so they'll go to the extreme end of ratfucking to avoid it. It's been one of their fave tactics since the Nixon era.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,674
2,273
146
Ever deeper into the pit of denial, huh?

What this thread & the constant Hillary bashing illustrates is the desperation of Repubs to face somebody who isn't Hillary in the general election.

She'll kick their ass & they know it so they'll go to the extreme end of ratfucking to avoid it. It's been one of their fave tactics since the Nixon era.
You might want to re-calibrate your criticism, since I'm an independent. I might vote for Gary Johnson if Hillary is not the nominee, but if she is, I will vote for the anti-Hillary, whoever that is.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |