Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope. I just linked to the current data that I think should be included. You don't think it should?
Well I suppose if a candidate has been taking donations from the KKK for years, but not for the current election....we should just focus on the current donations?
The OP's data leaves out the past 8 months, which is most of the current election cycle.
The last time Clinton ran for office was 2008. Is there any point in posting data from 2000-2008 while excluding most of her current campaign data? If so, please elaborate.
Because many of the major "party establishment" people like Jeb and Hillary raised HUGE amounts of money before declaring their candidacy.
That's a loophole that gets around all sorts of contribution laws.
Then, with 100mil or more in their warchest, they can then START officially taking donations and pushing the meme that they are just supported "by the little people" and pay no attention to all the donations from Koch Industries or Goldman Sachs or Exxon etc etc etc. (Because just look at my numbers from this election cycle...the official ones...no fair using anything earlier....lmfao.)
Seriously, if you are unaware of the strategy where they load up on cash BEFORE declaring....you've been suckered.
It's either that or you've got one seriously bad case of rationalization going on that Hillary isn't deeeeeeep in bed with wallstreet just because she hasn't taken their money as much since "officially" declaring despite the fact that she's been doing pre-campaign tours around the US for the last 2 years.
We should just chalk it up to choosing the least of evils.
Most of these candidates have unsavory track records (and running for all the wrong reasons)
But too many voters could care less to consider the implications/consequences to our country overall, to consider the greater good.
Sanders isnt evil. He is running for all the right reasons. Because he wants an economy and government that works for all of us, not just the wealthy campaign contributors. And Texas is voting today.
I think it's interesting that Sanders received so much union support. Yet, the only union I personally have recent knowledge of is backing Hillary. Go figure.
I think it's interesting that Sanders received so much union support. Yet, the only union I personally have recent knowledge of is backing Hillary. Go figure.
And how did that union decide this? Were all the members polled?
And how did that union decide this? Were all the members polled?
No, it's a top down decision. My Union endorsed Hillary and when I pressed them on it, they acknowledged Bernie probably has more support among our members but Hillary is more "electable".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
