dpberr Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) "The Clinton event was billed as “lunch with Hillary Rodham Clinton” and had four donation levels to attend. Those contribution levels were described as $100,000, which featured “chair reception with Hillary,” $33,000, which included a “host reception with Hillary,” $5,000, which included “preferred seating” and $2,700." Such a candidate of the people. Other than determined to elect the first female president, I have no idea why she has the support she does in some corners of the American demographic. I doubt there are many college students or people who work for a living who are going to can shell out for preferred seating at $2,700. Edited September 21, 2016 by dpberr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Video: Debate audience bursts into laughter when congressional candidate claims Hillary is ‘honest’ Hillary spent 68% of campaign cash on ads … and still can’t close the deal It's always great when a plan comes together.pic.twitter.com/ttyYY1q0If 327 retweets 250 likes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Word is that Assange's "October surprise" is LIAR sold weapons to ISIS. That's the least surprising surprise ever. That was the whole point overthrowing Gaddafi and establishing a presence in Benghazi in the first place. He was brought down because Saudi Salafists purchased his country through the US State Department (i.e. you-know-who), to support their boiz. BTW, the amount was no less than $25M, in order to corruptly use the US Military to destroy a sovereign nation that in no way was a security risk to the US. To me it begs the question: what is Soros getting for his money? Edited September 21, 2016 by Ralonzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Hillary's good buddy David Brock: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-20/money-laundering-scheme-exposed-14-pro-clinton-super-pacs-non-profits-implicated http://heatst.com/politics/david-brock-money-laundering/ David Brock is everything normal people hate about politics. He’s a shady, shameless shill for Hillary Clinton who has made a fortune in the “political operative” industry by doing political operative-y things that contribute nothing of value to society. He’s also (allegedly) a paranoid coke fiend who travels with an armed security detail because he’s afraid snipers are going to get him. Brock is probably going to want to lawyer up following the publication of a month-long investigation into his network of pro-Clinton political organizations. The Citizens Audit presents a compelling case that Brock is laundering money through the various PACs and non-profit groups he oversees. One of them is Media Matters, one of the most aggressively pro-Clinton operations in existence. The report presents evidence that, for years, Brock has been shifting money around between his various political organizations, while paying a 12.5 percent commission on each transaction to the Bonner Group, which serves as his (unregistered) solicitor — unregistered because that way the group is not legally required to disclose its contracts. The Bonner Group is run by Mary Pat Bonner, a rich Democratic donor with whom Brock shares a rental property in the Hamptons. Here’s a summary of how the scheme allegedly works: Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014: 1. Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation ◦The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission ◦Media Matters would retain $930,000 2.Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum ◦The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission ◦The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750 3.The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum ◦The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission ◦The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031 In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Hillary is supposed to show for a small rally in Orlando at 2:00. My (photographer) daughter went to see if she could get any good shots. They have already announced a Half-hour delay til Hill shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 21, 2016 Author Share Posted September 21, 2016 It's funny how they accuse their enemies of exactly what they do. That IS exactly what they do. They accuse the "rich" of having no regard or respect for the poor because they truly don't. It's funny how they accuse their enemies of exactly what they do. That IS exactly what they do. They accuse the "rich" of having no regard or respect for the poor because they truly don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Hillary spent 68% of campaign cash on ads … and still can’t close the deal It's always great when a plan comes together.pic.twitter.com/ttyYY1q0If Yes, by showing that you can spend $1B and still lose the election. That's the least surprising surprise ever. That was the whole point overthrowing Gaddafi and establishing a presence in Benghazi in the first place. He was brought down because Saudi Salafists purchased his country through the US State Department (i.e. you-know-who), to support their boiz. BTW, the amount was no less than $25M, in order to corruptly use the US Military to destroy a sovereign nation that in no way was a security risk to the US. To me it begs the question: what is Soros getting for his money? True it's no real surprise to us, but this will be devastating to her when those that didn't have an idea finally learn of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 True it's no real surprise to us, but this will be devastating to her when those that didn't have an idea finally learn of it. LOL at your naive Tay. Assange is a Comey like lap dog set up. If he releases anything at all it will be weak and allow for Hillary to say see I told you so just like Comey did. They are with her. If Assange really gave a crap about doing the right thing he would have done so already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 LOL at your naive Tay. Assange is a Comey like lap dog set up. If he releases anything at all it will be weak and allow for Hillary to say see I told you so just like Comey did. They are with her. If Assange really gave a crap about doing the right thing he would have done so already. Again, the word is that she sold weapons to ISIS. Is that "weak"? And he's waiting until it's too late to replace her with Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Again, the word is that she sold weapons to ISIS. Is that "weak"? And he's waiting until it's too late to replace her with Biden. Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. The "word" was that Comey was going to take her down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Buy on the rumor, sell on the news. The "word" was that Comey was going to take her down. No it wasn't. It was never the word and t certainly wasn't after Slick met with Lo. Edited September 21, 2016 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Need more proof that Team Hillary’s ‘clearly panicking’? This oughta do it Click on to enlarge. It’s really just sad at this point. To gin up enthusiasm, Clinton has recruited Hollywood liberals from a show that ended in 2006? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Need more proof that Team Hillarys clearly panicking? This oughta do it Click on to enlarge. Its really just sad at this point. To gin up enthusiasm, Clinton has recruited Hollywood liberals from a show that ended in 2006? Should be Frank and Claire Underwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Need more proof that Team Hillary’s ‘clearly panicking’? This oughta do it Click on to enlarge. It’s really just sad at this point. To gin up enthusiasm, Clinton has recruited Hollywood liberals from a show that ended in 2006? No, she's recruiting Hollywood liberals from her extended presidential campaign ad that ended in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Are their any poll numbers which are trustworthy which will accurately judge what type of hit she has or hasn't taken? I'm still under the impression that as long as she has a pulse she is going to win this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted September 22, 2016 Author Share Posted September 22, 2016 Need more proof that Team Hillary’s ‘clearly panicking’? This oughta do it Click on to enlarge. It’s really just sad at this point. To gin up enthusiasm, Clinton has recruited Hollywood liberals from a show that ended in 2006? I wonder why? Was the cast from Cheers not available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Are their any poll numbers which are trustworthy which will accurately judge what type of hit she has or hasn't taken? I'm still under the impression that as long as she has a pulse she is going to win this thing. This election is so weird I don't trust any polls. Both these candidates are so deplorable and nearly impossible for any rational person to actively support that the result is likely to be determined by voter turnout than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 I wonder why? Was the cast from Cheers not available? Cheers, that is so 1980s. Hiliary is trying to court the Millenial vote so she needs to reach out to hip young voters. But the cast of Friends just didn't want to get political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 No it wasn't. It was never the word and t certainly wasn't after Slick met with Lo. Lol ok. When Assange's fart gets blown away in the wind will you believe the next revelation will be the one to give her a comeuppance? There is already more than enough information out there to have her locked up forever but it will not be allowed. I am trying to explain to you how it works but you don't really need me for that. You'll understand eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Lol ok. When Assange's fart gets blown away in the wind will you believe the next revelation will be the one to give her a comeuppance? There is already more than enough information out there to have her locked up forever but it will not be allowed. I am trying to explain to you how it works but you don't really need me for that. You'll understand eventually. Again I said IF she truly sold weapons to ISIS, she's done. And I don't expect her to go to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts