Warren was referencing a 1 week old report from the associated press about the origins of the wine cave fundraiser that Buttigieg used. The problem was not the chandeliers or even the 900 dollars per bottle. The real problem is that the owner has been a prominent Democratic donor as a result of being bailed out from the Savings and Loans crisis that he was embroiled in in the 1980s and his fortune -and freedom, is likely a direct result of his large donations, particularly the large contributions given to the Speaker of the House at the time. This is important because this is a perfect example of the type of corruption that Warren has vowed to take on if she were elected President.
Craig and Kathryn Hall are prolific donors who split their time between Dallas and their California wineries. But they have also drawn notoriety over their past giving, as well as Craig Halls role in a 1980s savings and loan crisis.
Massive contributions to Democrats in the 1990s helped secure an Austrian ambassadorship for Kathryn Hall during Bill Clintons second term. Risky investments by Craig Hall, the chairman and founder of the Hall Group, during the savings and loan meltdown in the 1980s culminated in an over $300 million federal bailout and the resignation of House Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, a Democrat he turned to for help.
Federal regulators had been zeroing in on a series of Halls unpaid loans. To push back, the developer and bank operator turned to Wright, who was then ascending in the House leadership, to get them to back off, the AP reported at the time.
Wright held up legislation that would have given the struggling industry a $15 billion lifeline and told federal officials they had a choice. A few days later, the regulator overseeing some of Halls loans was replaced and the legislation moved forward.
Taxpayers eventually covered the cost of Halls default while the developers outreach to Wright played a central role in a congressional ethics investigation that toppled him from the speakers office in 1989.
It just means the share of seats rarely reflects the will of the voters. And I thought the EC was bad?
It would be a good year for him to run.
So that criticism is moot. There are evil nazi bastards, and there is the anti-evil nazi bastards. That's us.
And I will love to see Trump's reaction when he finally puts that together.
In the past few days we've been bombarded by news reports of militants streaming across the border into Iraq and sacking major Iraqi cities while terrorizing the population and executing fleeing soldiers. Republicans have lambasted Obama for not intervening to stop the rebels, presumably by putting boots on the ground, and the rest of us have wondered where the Iraqi army is and why they won't stand and fight. People need to take a deep breath and examine the facts before hitting the panic button.
First, what is the risk that ISIL (or ISIS depending on what channel you watch), a force of 10,000-20,000 militants will occupy large parts of Iraq long term? Recent gains, quickly made over the past few days, were a result of attacking an unprepared military and dysfunctional government, but no matter how poor the Iraqi army has performed so far, they are nonetheless 15 divisions strong, and once they are mobilized -the insurgents will have no choice to melt into the countryside or be destroyed. In the next few weeks we will see that, while spectacular, the rapid advances of ISIL will be short lived and most likely a massive blunder. The group was able to fly under the radar for a time while the U.S. troops occupied Iraq, but they were eventually forced out by local interests. Now, instead of being seen as a thorn in the side of U.S. occupiers, ISIL is seen as a brutal invader. In fact, while ISIL would enjoy a factional war creating a vacuum where they could thrive, this could be a catalyst for Iraqi unity.
Second, some people in Congress and the Senate are calling for U.S. intervention against ISIL, as if that would solve the problem of wanton violence throughout Iraq. The killings by ISIL are deeply troubling, but Iraq has been a terribly violent place even as the number of killings has gone down many times since the peak of U.S. occupation in 2006-07. Last year, nearly 10,000 civilian deaths from violence were recorded, but largely ignored by the media. The difference in this case is that there is an easy narrative to be formed, and many of our leaders and pundits have come to the comforting conclusion that U.S. military might can solve this problem.
Finally, it is easy to call the soldiers who abandoned their posts cowards and to paint the entire Iraqi army with the same brush. But there is a difference between undisciplined soldiers facing local numerical superiority fleeing with their families and a large mobilized force counter-attacking with the blessing of religious leaders. Many of our leaders and commentators have bemoaned the fact that the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, subtly (and many not subtly) hinting that maybe we should go back. John McCain even said that Obama should fire his entire national security team and replace them with Bush's national security (the disgraced David Petraeus included). Of course, that would be the same national security team that disbanded the Iraqi army resulting in years of insurgency and more than a hundred thousand deaths. All things considered, this is a perfect opportunity for the U.S. to practice restraint.
It is unacceptable for governments to use poisonous, toxic gas on their own people. To fiendishly and irresponsibly oversee the release of thousands of liters of toxic chemicals into the air is at best criminal, and at worst a complete betrayal of its' people. For thousands of people to die from the air they are breathing is something that the global community cannot put up with. This calls for swift intervention on behalf the people of the governments who do this, and regime change. No leader trusted with protecting its' people in a peaceful and diplomatic manner should be allowed to continue with such malevolence. It's time for multilateral action to stop this. It's time to put this to an end.
I support intervention in the United States to stop the chemical warfare of petrol gas, chromium trioxide in the water, and carbon monoxide. It is unacceptable for a country to declare war on it's own people, murdering them with a high rate of respiratory deaths and malnutrition from the release of these chemicals.
IT MUST END NOW.
Last time I checked, running against a decades long Republican incumbent with an enormous battle chest in one of the most Republican states in the country isn't the most winnable concept in the world. But hey, with her poll numbers, name recognition and Hollywood level financial backing, you'd be a pretty stupid Democratic strategist to try and stop her! But there are plenty of those, so it might happen...
So guys: If you care about winning this election and want to make sure the President we elected stays in office: you know what to do. Knocking on doors, making phone calls and registering voters TRANSLATES DIRECTLY INTO ELECTORAL MARGINS OF VICTORY.