A troll posts inflammatory articles to produce an emotional response. That is part of the very definition of a troll. That's what this and all his threads are. Just a trolling spammer.
And he is far right. His entire thread history here is dem bashing which has included birther stuff and lying that Obama had a social security number that was fake. Now he's onto to Hillary bullshit. This is what far right people do.
Russ is a far right, spamming troll....those are just facts. His own words and actions prove this.
Scott's a fucking mega hypocrite. If you made threads constantly attacking Republicans or connecting imaginary Republican dots... he would constantly call you a troll no doubt about it. But because he thinks like Russ but is smart enough not to look as loonish as him... he says it's not "trolling" and Russ is not "far right". Fucking comedy gold!!!
Kasich gave you the best way to stop her, but you're too foolish to listen. You'll continue to post about nonsense, that actually Helps her. I explained very clearly why I'm not voting for her. I don't trust her. She's also far too hawkish for my taste. Benghazi Helps her, because every time it's mentioned, sane people realize it's a settled issue where even Republicans absolved her of any involvement. He E Mails fiasco is a factor because it goes to her paranoia, BUT when it's beat into the ground by fools like you and the right wing media, and she can play the victim, it winds up helping her. But you don't get that, and you never will. And either do the idiots who think like you. Which is why you lose National Elections.
It is you who has a sanity problem and it is obvious. If you think she is playing the victim you need help. She is not playing anything she is simply postponing the inevitable. You still have not told us why you do not trust her you are just throwing around a generality. Too hawkish, that is probably from that time her plane was shot at right. I am not beating anything into the ground dumbass. The headlines abound and I just post them on here and it is up to the reader to determine if they are valid or not. You are not interested in getting to the truth about someone you already do not trust. You should be contributing to this thread but instead you run it down, how sane is that. Your true colors have been revealed. Uh, did we lose that election in 2012, get real. Meanwhile you keep protecting someone you do not trust, whatever.
We got the answer. You are Clearly senile. I am protecting Hillary? Me?? Ask one of the Hillary supporters if I am "protecting" her? I told you VERY CLEARLY why I don't trust her. But in your warped mind, I guess not trusting her is protecting her?????
Your "headlines" are all from the Right Wing Blogosphere media. They are Irrelevant to those that will decide the election, except they help Hillary by adding to the piling on perception. That's reality, and a sane Republican in Kasich is laying it out to you.
Um, yes, You did lose the election in 2012. Do you remember, or is the senility kicking in? Maybe you should ask President Romney.
We got the answer. You are Clearly senile. I am protecting Hillary? Me?? Ask one of the Hillary supporters if I am "protecting" her? I told you VERY CLEARLY why I don't trust her. But in your warped mind, I guess not trusting her is protecting her?????
Your "headlines" are all from the Right Wing Blogosphere media. They are Irrelevant to those that will decide the election, except they help Hillary by adding to the piling on perception. That's reality, and a sane Republican in Kasich is laying it out to you.
Um, yes, You did lose the election in 2012. Do you remember, or is the senility kicking in? Maybe you should ask President Romney.
I meant 2014 lol but the bottom line is that you have been exposed just like Hillary. You had another opportunity to explain why you do not trust Hillary and you did not. If you are opposed to a thread that is aimed at connecting the dots and you do not trust her why aren't you on board. You say these articles help Hillary by piling on. If you don't trust her why aren't you piling on much less interested in finding out the truth. You say you are not protecting her but you have not gone into detail why you are not going to vote for her other than you don't trust her. Why are you not at least focused on finding a Dem replacement. I have said many times on here that if a Dem gets elected other than Hillary I can live with that. But Obama and Hillary back to back will take this country to their lowest ever. You were wrong with Trayvon and many other topics and you are wrong again. You are trying to make it sound like Hillary is a shoe in and that ain't so. Trey will show her for what she is. So you think everyone should just sit back and accept the fate that you foresee, wrong. People who care want the facts and people have to dig to get the facts or do things like connect the dots. Kasich does not want Hillary either but his opinion is just his opinion nothing more. You don't get it and you never will.
I would vigorously support, and vote for, ANY of the Dems that are in the race against Hillary. Unfortunately, they have as much chance at the Dem nomination as I do. I deal in reality, not wishes and hopes like you do about Benghazi being the downfall of Hillary. The reality is Hillary is a shoe in for the Dem nomination.
I, in fact, went into detail on why I don't trust, and why I won't vote for Hillary. But since it's not based on your crazy Benghazi crap, it's not acceptable to you. If you and the crazy wingnut websites you live in, keep "connecting the dots" on Hillary, you're insuring a Hillary landslide. But you don't get it, and never will.
Firstly, this is the only website I deal in and primarily to contribute to college football. I started coming down here just to see what was going on. Politics is not a topic I discuss with friends and this is an outlet of sorts that allows one to get it out so to speak and to learn from what posters contnribute. Of course that excludes the trolls. I will continue to connect the dots on Hillary. Why, because they are everywhere. Will this thread make or break Hillary hell no. But the press is not all liberal and those digging into her past and present are finding dots that are scarey as hell. As far as Benghazi goes if you do not realize that defines Hillary you really don't get it. Whether or not it affects the election, we shall see but in the meantime the truth needs to surface. She allowed an Ambassador who had requested better and more security to die, basically hung him out to dry. I do not hang my hat on Benghazi but it should not be dismissed much less ignored and if you don't get that then it is nothing new. If you think that connecting dots on Hillary insures a landslide then we shall see. Meanwhile she needs to be exposed for not only what she is but what she is not. She has accomplished little to nothing in all these years which alone is pretty revealing. If you think I am wasting my time then I suggest that you just quit coming to this thread or start another one. As far as going into detail about why you don't trust Hillary would you please refresh my memory and detail the reasons one more time. Meanwhile as far as reality goes there is an old saying that applies, "It ain't over till it's over."
[h=2]New York Times’ Top Shareholder Is a Clinton Foundation Donor[/h]A rundown of the many connections between the Times and the Clintons
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Brent Scher
June 10, 2015 5:00 am
Multiple high-dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation are associated with the New York Times, including the Times’ top shareholder, Carlos Slim.
Slim, a Mexican telecom tycoon whose net worth of nearly $80 billion makes him the second richest man in the world, became thetop shareholder of the New York Timesearlier this year after he doubled his shares to take control of 16.8 percent of the company.
Not only has Slim contributed between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but his company Telmex has contributed an additional grant between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 through its foundation. Slim has also pledged $100 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a collaboration between the Clinton Foundation and Canadian mining tycoon Frank Guistra.
Slim earned his fortune by gaining a stranglehold on the Mexican telecom industry so tight that theconstitution had to be amended earlier this year to give other companies a chance. His net worth managed to grow following the new antitrust regulations, and he is now strengthening his hold over the Mexican banking sector.
In addition to the charitable giving, Hillary Clinton was paid between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech she gave to Slim’s Telmex Foundation.
Slim takes pride in the amount of praise that has been showered on him by the Clintons, even featuring a laudatory statement from Bill Clinton the top of his personal website.
The praise for Slim is not universal. Slim has been referred to as “Mr. Monopoly” and is often met with protestors complaining of his “corrupt and monopolistic” business practices that “keep millions of Mexicans in poverty.“
Slim’s telecom empire has spread into the United States, where one of his companies was on the receiving end of money from a federal mobile phone subsidy for the poor by providing what have come to be known as “Obama phones.”
James A. Kohlberg is the name of a member of the New York Times’ board of directors, and Mark Thompson is the name of the president and CEO of the New York Times Company.
Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that she could not comment on the Kohlberg donation, but that Thompson has never made a donation to the Clinton Foundation.
“As a matter of policy, we do not comment on our directors or shareholders personal contributions to charity,” said Murphy. “In the case of Mark Thompson, I was able to ask him and he has never made a donation to the Clinton Foundation.”
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions regarding the identity of the donors.
The money has not only flowed from the Times to the Clintons. In 2008, the Clinton Family Foundation contributed $100,000 to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity controlled by the organization’s board of directors and senior executives that assists underprivileged New Yorkers.
Individuals on staff at the New York Times have also been put front and center at Clinton Foundation events.
For example, David Leonhardt, a top political reporter at the Times who is managing editor of “The Upshot” was the moderator for a “no ceilings” discussion with Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation donor Melinda Gates at the 2014 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.
Other Times members that have participated in CGI events are columnists Thomas Friedman (in both2006 and 2010), Nicholas Kristof (in 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014), and David Sheff (in 2014).
Andrew Revkin, who left the Times in 2009 but still writes for the publication, has participated in CGI events in 2010 and 2013. He was also the keynote speaker for a CGI donor meeting on climate change in 2008. Bill Clinton sat down with Revkin in 2007 to unveil a new initiative to fight climate change.
When asked how the donations from Times shareholder Carlos Slim and others have affected the paper’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation, Murphy said that “the New York Times does not have a relationship with the Clinton Foundation.”
SHARE
TWEET
Carlos Slim / AP
BY: Brent Scher
June 10, 2015 5:00 am
Multiple high-dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation are associated with the New York Times, including the Times’ top shareholder, Carlos Slim.
Slim, a Mexican telecom tycoon whose net worth of nearly $80 billion makes him the second richest man in the world, became thetop shareholder of the New York Timesearlier this year after he doubled his shares to take control of 16.8 percent of the company.
Not only has Slim contributed between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but his company Telmex has contributed an additional grant between $1,000,001 and $5,000,000 through its foundation. Slim has also pledged $100 million to the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a collaboration between the Clinton Foundation and Canadian mining tycoon Frank Guistra.
Slim earned his fortune by gaining a stranglehold on the Mexican telecom industry so tight that theconstitution had to be amended earlier this year to give other companies a chance. His net worth managed to grow following the new antitrust regulations, and he is now strengthening his hold over the Mexican banking sector.
In addition to the charitable giving, Hillary Clinton was paid between $250,000 and $500,000 for a speech she gave to Slim’s Telmex Foundation.
Slim takes pride in the amount of praise that has been showered on him by the Clintons, even featuring a laudatory statement from Bill Clinton the top of his personal website.
www.carlosslim.com
Slim was given an award for his philanthropic work by Clinton at the 2006 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting, which was presented to him by actress Eva Longoria. He was honored again in 2012, when he was given the CGI Global Citizen Award.The praise for Slim is not universal. Slim has been referred to as “Mr. Monopoly” and is often met with protestors complaining of his “corrupt and monopolistic” business practices that “keep millions of Mexicans in poverty.“
Slim’s telecom empire has spread into the United States, where one of his companies was on the receiving end of money from a federal mobile phone subsidy for the poor by providing what have come to be known as “Obama phones.”
Hillary Clinton hugs Carlos Slim in 2014 / Credit: The Telmex Foundation
Slim does not appear to be the only person tied to the Times that has given money to the Clintons. Also on the Clinton Foundation list of donors are James A. Kohlberg and Mark Thompson. Kohlberg contributed between $50,001 and $100,000, and Thompson contributed between $10,001 and $25,000.James A. Kohlberg is the name of a member of the New York Times’ board of directors, and Mark Thompson is the name of the president and CEO of the New York Times Company.
Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said that she could not comment on the Kohlberg donation, but that Thompson has never made a donation to the Clinton Foundation.
“As a matter of policy, we do not comment on our directors or shareholders personal contributions to charity,” said Murphy. “In the case of Mark Thompson, I was able to ask him and he has never made a donation to the Clinton Foundation.”
The Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions regarding the identity of the donors.
The money has not only flowed from the Times to the Clintons. In 2008, the Clinton Family Foundation contributed $100,000 to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity controlled by the organization’s board of directors and senior executives that assists underprivileged New Yorkers.
Individuals on staff at the New York Times have also been put front and center at Clinton Foundation events.
For example, David Leonhardt, a top political reporter at the Times who is managing editor of “The Upshot” was the moderator for a “no ceilings” discussion with Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation donor Melinda Gates at the 2014 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.
Other Times members that have participated in CGI events are columnists Thomas Friedman (in both2006 and 2010), Nicholas Kristof (in 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2014), and David Sheff (in 2014).
Andrew Revkin, who left the Times in 2009 but still writes for the publication, has participated in CGI events in 2010 and 2013. He was also the keynote speaker for a CGI donor meeting on climate change in 2008. Bill Clinton sat down with Revkin in 2007 to unveil a new initiative to fight climate change.
When asked how the donations from Times shareholder Carlos Slim and others have affected the paper’s relationship with the Clinton Foundation, Murphy said that “the New York Times does not have a relationship with the Clinton Foundation.”
[h=1]Let down by Obama, some black voters ask: Is it even worth backing Clinton?[/h]
Jacksonville, Fla. — During those two electric Novembers, the chance to elect a black president, and then keep him in office, seized Regenia Motley’s neighborhood.
Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said “Obama.” And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.
But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again.
“What was the point?” asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.”
===
I would post the unemployment rate of black youth, but what is the point? The left just blames Bush.
Jacksonville, Fla. — During those two electric Novembers, the chance to elect a black president, and then keep him in office, seized Regenia Motley’s neighborhood.
Nightclubs were registering voters. Churches held fish fries after loading buses that ferried parishioners to the polls. A truck hoisted a big sign that said “Obama.” And residents waited in long lines at precincts across the community.
But as Motley and some friends sought shade recently under a mulberry tree and looked across the landscape of empty lots and abandoned houses that has persisted here, they wondered whether they would ever bother voting again.
“What was the point?” asked Motley, 23, a grocery store clerk. “We made history, but I don’t see change.”
===
I would post the unemployment rate of black youth, but what is the point? The left just blames Bush.
As Her Numbers Plummet, Clinton Looks for Big Money from Big Donors
To counter her plunge in the polls, Clinton is counting on raising obscene amounts of money. How? By crafting a platform pleasing to billionaires.
Reminder: at no point in Hillary Clinton's public life have her poll #'s increased the more the public has seen her. In every election, she was less popular as the campaign went on.
To counter her plunge in the polls, Clinton is counting on raising obscene amounts of money. How? By crafting a platform pleasing to billionaires.
Reminder: at no point in Hillary Clinton's public life have her poll #'s increased the more the public has seen her. In every election, she was less popular as the campaign went on.
[h=1]Hillary Asks Donors for $1[/h][h=2][/h]6:51 PM, JUN 9, 2015 • BY DANIEL HALPER
Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
Hillary Clinton is asking supporters to chip in a buck. In an email this afternoon, Clinton writes, "I’m asking you to step up today, give just $1, and become a Launch Donor -- one of the tough, essential supporters who stood with me from the very beginning."
But Clinton says it's not about the dollar.
"It's not about the money. It's about knowing that when I step on the stage on Saturday, you’re with me. You have my back -- just like I’ll have yours."
The ask is a lot less expensive than the one Clinton is making of those who want to attend the fundraiser with singer Jon Bon Jovi. A ticket to that event costs between $1,000-$2,700.
Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts
Hillary Clinton is asking supporters to chip in a buck. In an email this afternoon, Clinton writes, "I’m asking you to step up today, give just $1, and become a Launch Donor -- one of the tough, essential supporters who stood with me from the very beginning."
But Clinton says it's not about the dollar.
"It's not about the money. It's about knowing that when I step on the stage on Saturday, you’re with me. You have my back -- just like I’ll have yours."
The ask is a lot less expensive than the one Clinton is making of those who want to attend the fundraiser with singer Jon Bon Jovi. A ticket to that event costs between $1,000-$2,700.
Hilary Rodham Clinton is one of the most powerful female politicians in the world. Raised in a conservative Ilinois family, and supporting the Republicans (Hillary canvassed for Richard Nixon in his failed 1960 campaign against John Kennedy) she enrolled at Wellesley College, an elite women’s university outside Boston, and chaired the party’s campus group as well as being elected president of the student government.
