Trump and Clinton, sitting in a tree...

[demwing]

http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/250445-brent-budowsky-is-trump-a-clinton-plant

Tongues are wagging throughout the world of political insiders with news that former president and potential future first gentleman Bill Clinton had a great chat with Donald Trump shortly before the real estate magnate announced his candidacy for president. Could it be possible that Trump is a plant for Bill and Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign, encouraged to run in the GOP primary in order to wreak havoc on the Republicans?

Trump has a history. He has donated substantial money, to his credit, to the Clinton Foundation. He was an important supporter of Hillary Clinton for president in 2008, and was a notable donor to her campaign that year. In the past Trump has offered very high praise for the former secretary of State — especially when he was supporting and helping to fund her presidential campaign in 2008.

To his great credit, Trump has long been a supporter of single-payer healthcare, and at various times has raved about the excellent healthcare provided by single-payer plans in two nations at the forefront of this cause. He has offered high praise for the Canadian system, and earlier this year offered similarly high praise for the single-payer system in Scotland.

SNIP>>>

This is the context for the widely discussed conversation between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump shortly before Trump announced his candidacy. What could Trump do in the campaign that would help the Clintons the most? First, he would personally attack leading GOP candidates in 2016, using derisive language that would almost surely find its way into Hillary Clinton campaign ads if she were to become the Democratic nominee. Check that box, right? Next, Trump could deeply offend Hispanic voters who widely respect Hillary Clinton already. Check that box, too!

Similarly, if Trump tied the GOP in knots by prolonging the Republican nominating process, and prolonged the process of Republicans attacking Republicans, that would be a huge benefit for Hillary Clinton. Check that box. And to the degree that newer faces in the Republican Party who could become the strongest challengers to the Democratic nominee in November, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), found their message drowned out by Trump, the big winner would be Hillary Clinton! Check that box, too.

There's also this Wall Street Journal piece about Trump's "liberal" donations, here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-says-his-past-politics-were-transactional-1438213199

It's subscription only, but the list of Dems that Trump donated to includes former Rep. Anthony Weiner, former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, current Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer, Rep. Charles Rangel, and (amazingly) the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. That doesn't sound like the Trump we all love to hate!

So I ask the following:

If Trump is a political performance artist, what's the final scene in act three? Help elect Clinton?

If true, how does that make you feel when Team Hillary warns us about the dangers of a possible Trump presidency?

If Trump is not now acting, if he has always been a hateful racist, then what does that say about the Clinton's choice of friends? Anything for a buck (or $100K), right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/242088-trump-gave-at-least-100k-to-clinton-foundation

[Thinkingabout]

1. And?

[leftofcool]

2. This wedding photo has been posted at least 25 times

So have all the articles.

[BootinUp]

3. I love reading wacky conspiracy theories on holidays

Thank You!!

[onehandle]

4. INSERT BOLD HTML, LINKS, AND IMAGES HERE. nt

[Ron Green]

5. Look, the 1% are the 1%.

They party together, they rule together. They don't give a shit about you.

[Scuba]

6. Maybe Trump is one of the Republicans Hillary told Rachel she'd be OK with as her running mate.

[Beaverhausen]

9. What?

She didn't name one when given the chance. I guess you missed the interview.

[Scuba]

10. She said there were some she'd be OK with

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Maybe she doesn't want to name one

[questionseverything]

54. i am no hc fan but

bill getting the donald to run.....is genius

honestly i believe trump will not win the repub nom and will then run indy, which is the only way hc could possibly win the general by the repub vote being split

i support bernie and hope he can prevail in the primary but

watching this long con is fascinating

[Fawke Em]

70. It may be fascinating, but the immorality of it sickens me.

This is all a game to the 1 percent - the Clintons and Trump.

Never mind that the country needs real leadership, change that helps the middle and working class and an upending of most of our political processes.

As long as they can play a "long con" on the people, it's hunky dory.

[tularetom]

80. Hey look it's meeting of the big club

You know, the one that you ain't in!

[Buzz Clik]

7. Trump and Sanders have this much in common:

Both have claimed to be Independent, both have claimed to be Democrats. Neither can seem to decide their party affiliation.

[99Forever]

12. Says a supporter of someone who changes their "opinion" on issues...

... more often than some people change underwear.

Flippity floppity.

[Buzz Clik]

18. Changing one's affiliation to run for office? Oh, my

Flippity floppity, indeed.

[99Forever]

19. Changing one's policies from one day to the next...

.. or sometimes from one line to the next.

Yes.




Flippity floppity, indeed.

[Buzz Clik]

22. My goal is not to defend HRC, but to point out your hypocrisy

Mission accomplished.

[99Forever]

23. Yeah right.

Like you fool anyone.

Bwahahahahahahaha.

Kewl story dooooood.

[Broward]

8. Birds of a feather flock together.

[Yurovsky]

59. Yep, 1% greedy corporatists who don't give a rats ass about anyone else...

anyone stupid enough to think Hillary's corporate sponsors will allow her to do anything that runs counter to their interests is just too stupid to try and convince otherwise. 1%ers may be evil but they're not dumb. They know Hillary will do nothing to tip the scales in favor of the poor and working class. She's all talk, but in the end, nothing but a selfish, greedy elitist who has never really accomplished anything without riding Bill's coat tails.

Nominating Hillary would be a huge step backwards for the Democratic Party, and a victory for the corporatists as they would own both candidates running next November. And that is exactly the matchup those evil fuckers want, aided and abetted by those who call themselves Democrats but refuse to accept the undeniable, overwhelming evidence that she is little more than a subsidiary of Wall Street and the Corporate Elite. I guess if you're rich and hold some liberal social positions you're a-ok with Hillary (she's now pro-gay marriage! Better late than never, right????).

[treestar]

11. guilt by association

that does not mean their politics are the same. There a photos of me with all kinds of right wingers. Because I am polite enough to speak to people whether they agree with me on politics or not.

[demwing]

14. You didn't read it, did you?

Your specific criticism is a tell.

The photo is not the story. Trump's donations to Hillary's campaign and the Clinton Foundation are, as is the possibility that Trump is a Clinton Boogie man.

The photo, I believe, was taken at Trump's wedding reception. Pretty chummy...

[treestar]

27. Seriously? Trump is running as an R in order to help Hillary get elected?

The CTs are getting better and better!

If Trump really was for single payer, why aren't the other Republicans using that against him?

And because people are on opposite ends of politics does not mean they cannot be friends. Some people can be professional. And not take everything so personally.

[demwing]

31. Please proceed, treestar

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/11/reid-ribble/donald-trump-wants-replace-obamacare-single-payer-/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/08/09/trump-singlepayer-health-care-could-have-worked-in-a-different-age-n2036717

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/trump-pushes-single-payer-healthcare-tax-increase-on-wealthy/

[treestar]

37. The first one is one of his opponents claiming that

and is a conservative site arguing that Trump is too liberal. Right wingers often think their candidates are too liberal the same exact way DUers often argue ours are too conservative.

In the 2nd one from Conservative Radio / Town Hall:

TRUMP: And the Middle East became totally destabilized. So I just want to say.

As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland. It could have worked in a different age, which is the age you're talking about here. What I'd like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees. And if I'm negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have like one bidder. Nobody can bid.

You know why?

Because the insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians, of course, with the exception of the politicians on this stage.

But they have total control of the politicians. They're making a fortune.

Get rid of the artificial lines and you will have. yourself great plans. And then we have to take care of the people that can't take care of themselves. And I will do that through a different system.

Maybe you'd want to vote for him? He sounds like Bernie here. But he's really just saying the market should take care of it and he'll help those worst off, which is the status quo.

The third is Breitbart, in which he says:

Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?

Donald Trump: –the government’s gonna pay for it. But we’re going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.

While is really just the same old free market thing.

He is also so unwise to risk revealing the conspiracy he and Hillary are in.

[demwing]

39. Interesting that Trump is to the left of Hillary on anything!

thanks for the input

[Fawke Em]

71. Since Trump called Bill before he ran, we moved from "CT" to

"things that make you go, 'Hmmm'."

[Lilith Rising]

13. Weak sauce.

[demwing]

15. OK /nt

[KoKo]

84. Not really........Seems an observation by a credible observer:

More of the article:

"This is the context for the widely discussed conversation between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump shortly before Trump announced his candidacy. What could Trump do in the campaign that would help the Clintons the most? First, he would personally attack leading GOP candidates in 2016, using derisive language that would almost surely find its way into Hillary Clinton campaign ads if she were to become the Democratic nominee. Check that box, right? Next, Trump could deeply offend Hispanic voters who widely respect Hillary Clinton already. Check that box, too!

Similarly, if Trump tied the GOP in knots by prolonging the Republican nominating process, and prolonged the process of Republicans attacking Republicans, that would be a huge benefit for Hillary Clinton. Check that box. And to the degree that newer faces in the Republican Party who could become the strongest challengers to the Democratic nominee in November, such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), found their message drowned out by Trump, the big winner would be Hillary Clinton! Check that box, too.

Of course the grand slam for Hillary Clinton would be if Donald Trump were to run as a third-party candidate in 2016. Remember how H. Ross Perot running in 1992 was vital to the election of Bill Clinton and set the stage for his highly successful and fondly remembered two-term presidency? It would be highly unlikely that this box will ultimately be checked by Team Clinton, but stranger things have happened.

Does this suggest that Donald Trump is a Clinton plant in the current campaign? Of course not, but my tongue is only halfway planted in my cheek by raising this thought, which is delightful for Democrats and deep down must be scary for Republicans.

Whatever Trump’s motivations for entering the 2016 campaign, had Bill Clinton been planting sweet thoughts in his ear before he decided to run, they would have been thoughts about what Trump should do that would help Hillary Clinton the most — the exact things that Trump has indeed been doing!

As for Trump’s long-term praise of single-payer healthcare and his words of praise and donations of support to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton in 2008, Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, Rangel and Weiner, among others, I would respectfully suggest this: The most interesting presidential debates are not between Trump and the other GOP candidates, but between what Trump says today and what this candidate who claims to “tell it like it is” has said and done over the last three decades!"

-----

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Contributors blog.

[nilesobek]

16. Rich and powerful need not have honor or ethics.

The money takes care of all that.

[brooklynite]

20. Take this out on the campaign trail...let us know how it works.

[reddread]

24. someone should tally how many times she has mentioned Trump and Jeb Bush on national appearances

and see if she ever once mentioned (promoted) any other candidates by name.

its clear as day who she favors.

[Dem2]

33. Ahhh, the old subliminal promotion

Outstanding theory.

[reddread]

35. nothing subliminal there Agent Mulder

it is advertising,
and her manner towards Trump
should make
every serious
Democratic voter
ill.

[Dem2]

45. OK

:Hi:

[JTFrog]

25. Someone accidentally leave their tech device at the kids table this Thanksgiving?

Just when you think things couldn't get more childish around here.

[demwing]

28. Facts are facts

But feel free to dismiss what you can't debate.

[JTFrog]

34. Sure, in the spirit of the OP...

Neener neener boo boo.

[demwing]

38. You outdid yourself

I was expecting something less cogent.

Well done!

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Now where did I leave my tin foil hat.

And guilt by association pledge card.

[demwing]

29. Facts are still facts

can you dispute any of what was posted?

[Agnosticsherbet]

32. No, I only see bullshit in an "Opinion Piece."

Opinion articles are not about facts.

[demwing]

36. Then you didn't look very hard

Trump's donations, public comments, policies, and associations are facts.

And if you don't think "guilt by association" is fair, I'm sure you condemned Clinton when she criticized Obama over Reverend White in 2008, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=852804

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. This is an article constructed to attack to the two front runners.

I admire the way it is put together. The writer is a talented propagandist. Pull in just enough facts and glue them together in insinuation.

None of this is new, and we have hashed it out.

And guilt by association is an ugly thing to do, even when done against Trump, though it that part works I won't complain.

Now, you want to discuss policy? Racism? Taxes? Gun control? Immigration? I'm all in.

Tar and feathers, not my style.

[demwing]

41. How about a discussion on character?

Honesty? Crony Politics? Manipulation?

Those issues are at least as relevant as taxes and immigration policies.

[Agnosticsherbet]

42. OK. Sanders voted against the Bradey Bill and for immunizing gun manufacturers. That speaks to his

character. When asked, he said that he voted that way because he came form a rural state and the people wanted that vote.

Because Sanders votes the way he wants on economic issues rather than as his constituents want, that tells me he doesn't care one way or another about the US disaster with guns.


That informs me on his character, or lack there of, on an issue of critical importance in this nation and to me.

Whose wedding invitation she accepted, and who her husband may have talked too are backyard gossip.

[demwing]

46. Character or Judgement?

From Bernie, at the CNN Den Debate:

Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?

SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.

That's not character, that's judgement. You may disagree with his reasoning, that's your call, but some Democrats would disagree with you.

Bernie has a D- rating from the NRA. He's consistently spoken out for common sense gun controls, even when it costs him electorally. THAT speaks to his character.

Regarding Hillary attending the Trump wedding:

Tina Brown, also a guest, commented on the Clintons' attendance in the Washington Post, writing, “Bill and Hillary Clinton were there to do what they always like to do for R&R: raise money.” At a 2015 Republican presidential debate, Trump was asked about the Clintons' attendance at his wedding. He said: “I'll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, 'Be at my wedding,' and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice. I gave to their foundation.”

If Trump is the asshole he appears to be, then the Clintons cultivated his friendship to keep the cash flowing. If he's not - if he's just faking it - then the issue of his friendship with the Clintons easily leads to the possibility that he's raising this shit storm as a method of frightening voters to vote Democratic and that the Clintons know that it's a scam.

Both scenarios speak to Hillary's character.

And BTW, for every Bernie on Gun Control accusation you make, I'll counter with Hillary's support of the Iraq war.

[Agnosticsherbet]

48. Bad judgement and bad character.

Talking about complexity is justifying voting for a piece shit bill.

His judgement and character failed.

[demwing]

50. Don't like nuance eh? Then Hillary is just as complicit as Bush or Cheney

for Iraq.

War Criminal.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. I don't like welfare for gun corporations, and dead children.

Sanders doesn't give a damn about the problems with guns. He doesn't get my vote in the primary, and he doesn't deserve it.

[demwing]

58. But you support the candidate that voted for the Iraq war

450,000 + people died in that war and in the ten years that followed. ISIS was formed, and now another war looms, all as a direct result of that illegal war.

Clinton has since admitted it was a bad vote. All forgiven, eh?

When then-U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war against Iraq in 2002, she justified her support of the invasion as a way to protect America’s national security. But less than a decade later, as secretary of state, Clinton promoted the war-torn country as a place where American corporations could make big money.

“It's time for the United States to start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity," she said in a 2011 speech.

The quote was included in an email released by the State Department on Wednesday that specifically mentioned JPMorgan and Exxon Mobil. JPMorgan was selected by the U.S. government to run a key import-export bank in Iraq and in 2013 announced plans to expand its operations in the country. Exxon Mobil signed a deal to redevelop Iraqi oil fields. JPMorgan has collectively paid the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation at least $450,000 for speeches, and Exxon Mobil has donated over $1 million to the family’s foundation...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426522/-Hillary-Clinton-Pitched-Iraq-as-a-Business-Opportunity-For-US-Corporations

LOOK. Look at the picture of the victims above, and tell me that it makes you think "business opportunity."

Disgusting.

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. Love? I don't "love" any candidate. I am not a member of a cult of personality.

More Americans have been killed with guns here in our country than in all the wars we fought.

Iraq war was one vote, and in my opinion, a bad choice. She actually has admitted that was a mistake.
Sanders voted to immunize gun corporations and against the Bradey bill. Two bad mistakes. His excuse was to Justify it because it was "complex" and then say he came from a small rural state and was voting for his constituents. Those were monumentally bad decisions. Rather than admit a mistake he gave excuses.

The only thing Sanders cares about is his Economic Justice. I think that is a good idea, except that he seems to think that if he could get it enacted it would solve all our problems, like guns, racism, women's issues.

Love your candidate if you want.

I don't love any candidates, and I don't hate any candidate. I want a representative not a relationship.

I look at what I think needs to be done, and I vote for the one that falls closest to that. Of all the Candidates, Sanders is my third choice in the Primary.

[demwing]

68. OK...Changed "love" to "support"

You support the candidate that voted for the Iraq war, and you support the candidate that encouraged America to "start thinking of Iraq as a business opportunity"

That's a disgusting sentiment, why do you support it?

As far as your first statement:

"More Americans have been killed with guns here in our country than in all the wars we fought."

That's true, but ignores all the non-Americans that died in those wars we fought.

Do they not count?

[Agnosticsherbet]

74. You support a candidate who doesn't give a damn about gun regulation and immunizes gun corporations.

I actually supported Sanders until I discovered that detail. He is my number 3 choice for a representative because of those votes. If he wins the nomination, I will happily vote for him against the Republican nominee because he will be the best choice of those available.


War is a terrible thing. We fight them, sometimes. A few are forced upon us. Most we fight for other reasons. War, sadly, is part of the human condition and will persist as long as two humans have different opinions on anything.

Again, more Americans have died because of gun violence here at home then in all the wars we ever fought. Foreign governments should be responsible for their people. I expect out government to be responsible to our citizens. I simply can not trust Sanders to be responsible because that issue is not important to him.

Sanders economic justice is not going to stop one person from walking into a school and murdering the children. It won't stop one misogynist from walking into a planed parenthood office and blowing them away. It will not stop one white supremacist from walking into a black church and murdering its members. It won't stop one neo-Nazi form walking into a synagogue and killing its members.

Yes, war counts, but so do Institutionalized Racism, gun violence, sexism, economic inequality, and many other issues.

I do not trust Sanders on anything but economic inequality. That is not enough to win my vote in the primary.

[demwing]

77. "Foreign governments should be responsible for their people"

Sure. We kill them, and it's their fault. Blame the victims.

You still haven't answered my question as to why you support war profiteering...

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. I don't blame victims. I was clear about my stance on war. Read it again.

Yes, foreign governments are responsible for their citizens. I don't blame the people who died. Rather than use it as a personal attack, what policies are most important to you.

War and war profiteering fall under foreign diplomacy. As a spectrum of issues, foreign diplomacy falls below civil rights in my opinion.

The right to go to a PP clinic and not get blown away is important to me.
The right to walk down the street and not be shot by a cop is important to me.
The right to attend church and not be killed is important to me.
Ending White privilege is important to me.
Removing the glass ceiling is important to me.

Economic equality is a great issue, it will not solve the other issues that plague this country.

Sanders is my third choice because the issues that are important to me do not hold a high place in his agenda.

[demwing]

85. So war profiteering just isn't important enough

and you create a false agenda for Bernie, then tell yourself that Bernie's plan (rather - YOUR false version of his plan) just isn't good enough.

Here's the facts about Bernie:

You wrote:

The right to go to a PP clinic and not get blown away is important to me.
Removing the glass ceiling is important to me.

Those are all important to Bernie, always have been
https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-for-womens-rights/


You wrote:

The right to walk down the street and not be shot by a cop is important to me.
The right to attend church and not be killed is important to me.
Ending White privilege is important to me.

Those are all important to Bernie, always have been
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Back to point. We can talk about these issues, but this thread is about Clinton - whether Trump's donations and past praises for her are contrary to his hateful behavior, or part of a show, and whether Clinton is Machiavellian, or just willing to take money from hateful racists.

Some people have expressed their reluctance to see Clinton as that conniving, but it really is the more flattering explanation.

[Agnosticsherbet]

87. Again you make a baseless attacks. Why is that?

You are good at cutting and pasting, but try reading closely.

Sanders priorities are not mine.

His words and actions show that he doesn't care about America's problem with guns. That is critical for me. It is why I stopped supporting him. His priorities on other issues are not mine, nor do I think his priorities will solve the problems we face.

I have my priorities and you have yours.

That doesn't make you or me a bad person. We can have different opinions.

More than anything else, the acrimonious conflict between Sanders supporters and Clinton suporters bugs me.

[demwing]

88. Your priorities - as you expressed them - are also Bernie's

and always have been...

Whatever reason you have for claiming that Bernie doesn't care about those issues, it isn't fact based.

[Agnosticsherbet]

89. Gun control, Sanders voted against both the Brady Bill and voted to immunize

corporations that make guns.
His excuses were that the legislation was complex and he came from a rural state that opposed gun control.

Sanders never backs down on economic issues, whether his state supports it or not. That is the highest priority issue among most Sanders voters I know.

That tells me his priorities are not the same as mine. Gun regulation that is desperately needed is of no importance to him and is not going to something he tackles second, third, or even fourth.

His main priority is economic justice, and that is a good idea, but economic justice will not fix institutional racism or sexism or gun regulation, among others.

His priorities are not mine.

Otherwise, if he wins the nomination, I will happily vote for him in the General. The same is true if O'Malley, Clinton, or if Vermin Supreme wins the nomination. Any of those candidates will be incalculably better than the best possible Republican nominee.

Oh, and Vermin Supreme is my fourth choice. He doesn't have an advocacy here, though.

Image of Vermin Supreme, on the ballot in New Hampshire.

[demwing]

90. thanks for repeatedly kicking this thread to the top of the GDP

but I don't see this conversation as being very productive.

You make claims about Bernie's priorities that are demonstrably false - lather, rinse, repeat.

You refuse to engage on the facts, either in regard to Bernie, or to Clinton. I guess that the redirection to Bernie is a defense strategy, but it's circular. Perhaps that is the strategy?

Anyway. This sub-thread has run it course. You get the last word, if you like.

[Agnosticsherbet]

91. My claims about Sanders priorities are demonstrably factual.

But you are welcome.

[Samantha]

30. In all candor, from the first moment I heard the story of Trump calling Bill Clinton

and asking him should he (Trump) run for President, I knew when I heard Trump's reported response from Bill Clinton that he should run if he wanted to, Bill Clinton (a/k/a "The Natural) is probably still laughing over the call. What could he do more than encourage Trump to be the Republican opponent against whom Hillary would be facing? What, what, what??? Nothing better.

I imagine Bill Clinton along with "the man in the middle" are truly enjoying this whole charade. What fun politics can be, right?

Sam

[Hiraeth]

43. Doesn't Trump also have a history of donating to R candidates, as well? Isn't that what most of

these Fat Cats do, butter their bread on both sides, so to speak.

[demwing]

44. Most of Donald Trump's Political Money Went To Democrats — Until 5 Years Ago

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/28/426888268/donald-trumps-flipping-political-donations

It's true that this data might not even reflect all of his donations to super PACs, to which donations can be anonymous. But it does indicate a sharp pivot toward supporting Republicans. That's perhaps even more pronounced when you consider the share of his total giving by party. Between 2010 and 2015, 97 percent of all of his donations have gone to Republicans. Prior to that, Democrats had been the primary beneficiaries, taking more than half of Trump's donations between 1989 and 2009.

[Tommy2Tone]

47. Sometimes an image does tell a story

[link:?w=500|

[demwing]

52. Ironic. That image doesn't tell any story at all

thus the attached text.

[demwing]

57. find a picture of Bernie at LaPierre's BDay or something

Gawd, could you imagine the red arrow shit storm?

[treestar]

60. It's quite the opposite IMO

A direct political support vs. mere socializing.

[demwing]

62. We'll never know, but i don't think so...

Bernie don't play that

[Tommy2Tone]

63. You guys are good at ignoring the elephant in the room.

Bernie won because he pandered to the NRA. They endorsed him.

[demwing]

64. Have you erred, or slurred?

Sanders was the ex-hippie ex-mayor of Burlington, running as an independent because the Democrats weren’t far enough left. He had never even owned a gun.

But that year, he was the enemy of the NRA’s enemy.

Smith had changed his mind about a ban on ­assault weapons. The NRA and its allies wanted him beaten. They didn’t much care who beat him.

“It is not about Peter Smith vs. Bernie Sanders,” LaPierre wrote, according to news coverage from the time. “It is about integrity in politics.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

I'm not sure if people just get this one wrong, or if they get it wrong on purpose?

[Tommy2Tone]

69. Was Bernie endorsed by the NRA?

Yes or no?

“Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than ­Peter Smith,” wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.

You might want to ask yourself the question, have you erred, or slurred?

[demwing]

72. Bernie Sanders WAS the more honorable choice for ALL of Vermont

stopped clock, etc...

Second, I just showed the context of the comment.

I really don't think I should have to repeat myself just because you failed to understand that context.

[Hepburn]

49. Birds of a feather...

...ummmmmmm....

[hrmjustin]

51. Trump is an ass. Clinton is presidential imo.

Nothing you posted changes that for me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. If you got it, flaunt it.

The money spent on the hairdos on display there probably exceeds the average weekly or monthly salary of most Americans.

[Cheese Sandwich]

56. BFF's 4 eva

[Doctor_J]

61. more theater from the owning class. They will be thrilled to have Clinton or trump in the

White house, could tolerate Bush - all three are their peers who will do exactly as told.

[R B Garr]

65. omfg! Some people from New York know each other!

OMG!

[demwing]

66. Admit it, you read the title, saw the photo, and started typing

The articles I quoted were about much more than Trump and Clinton knowing each other.

[R B Garr]

73. "Trump is a plant"

LOL.

[demwing]

75. Facts are facts.

even if you roll your digital eyeballs at them...

Now feel free to dispute what was in the post

[R B Garr]

76. Its a fact that Trump is a plant for the Clintons?

LOL, well you enjoy yourself...

[demwing]

78. Good question. Read the facts and decide

And I'm still waiting on you to dispute any of what was in the OP

[R B Garr]

79. Like I said, OMG, some people from New York know

each other. OMG. That is all there is. There are no other "facts'.

I should have known better. The CT's are about all this forum is anymore. Someone posted an Ann Coulter hates Hillary more than Sanders piece yesterday. I'm sure Rush Limbaugh is not far behind. I should have known better than to waste my time.

[demwing]

82. That's what I thought - you got NADA

[R B Garr]

83. And neither do you.

Nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Mott the hoople, and the game of life