And you would be wrong.
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-to-spend-37.92-for-every-vote-in-2.5b-campaign/article/2563004
IIRC, That $2.5 BIL figure you keep raging about is actually the CNN estimate of what both sides will spend on the election, since the Kochs are spending $984 MIL by themselves, that leaves $1.5 BIL or so left to the others on both sides.
Yes, yes- Let the Hillary hate flow through you. It'll scramble your brains more than a toke of crack. Must have a helluva rush, all that self righteous indignation rising up into incoherent raving.
He's wrong in the sense that he misunderstands the $2.5B because SirCommasAlot is also mistaken about the number being thrown around. But I'm guessing you're OK with the Brothers Who Cannot Be Named throwing close to a billion dollars into 2016 for a Republican, right? If that doesn't bother you, then why is that even an issue for Hillary(!)? Who cares that post Citizens United, it's literally negligent to not try to get as much money to get yourself elected POTUS?
What she really is? A neo-liberal center-right Democrat on economics and kinda-sorta socially liberal (here in reality); or the commie-lovin, Vincent Foster murdering Feminazi that Master Limbaugh vomits into the radio waves in order to sell advertising and get rich off the rubes he considers u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ Dittoheads?Awww, what's the matter? Too much butt hurt over Hillary being exposed for what she really is?
Awww, what's the matter? Too much butt hurt over Hillary being exposed for what she really is?
She said she would attempt to raise $2.5B, not that she'll get it.
Rest assured that her Repub competitor will raise a similar if not larger amount when all spending is accounted for- campaign, pacs, & 501(c)4 spending.
What she really is? A neo-liberal center-right Democrat on economics and kinda-sorta socially liberal (here in reality); or the commie-lovin, Vincent Foster murdering Feminazi that Master Limbaugh vomits into the radio waves in order to sell advertising and get rich off the rubes he considers u̶s̶e̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶d̶i̶o̶t̶s̶ Dittoheads?
Nah. I'm more amused at how Righties take conspiracy theory & innuendo as fact. It's the only "new information" they're capable of processing.
Anything that dovetails with existing erroneous belief is easily integrated.
Wow you must be really far left if you think Hillary is center-right.
Nothing I said was a conspiracy theory or innuendo.
Why not? She was a Republican for her early years, raised in a conservative home. She was president of the Young Republicans at her college. She volunteered to work for Goldwater's campaign, got invited by Charles Goodell, R-NY, to work for Nelson Rockefeller's 1968 campaign and attended the 1968 Republican national convention.
The fact she fled the Republican party was partly Nixon's campaigning tactics.
You couldn't have said it w/o believing in such things.
Doesn't change the fact that he was wrong.
Doesn't change the fact that she is pushing for campaign finance reform while campaigning for the biggest finances.
But hey, keep trying to make the Repubs the evil ones. I mean it was them who took in millions of dollars from Russians while giving favor to the Russians.
Wanting to change the rules is entirely different than playing by them. Or should she eschew fund raising against an opponent who does not? In what universe do you think she might prevail?
The rest? Mere innuendo.
Oh I believed it. 100%. NY was nothing more than a political stepping stone for her. It sucked for her that she had to make it two terms.
Once again proving my point:
Democrats need the law to tell them what is right and what is wrong. No morals, no principles.
Once again proving my point:
Democrats need the law to tell them what is right and what is wrong. No morals, no principles.
Astounding state of denial. It's wrong to legally raise money for a political campaign? Really?
Or is it only right when the source of the money can be obscured under the cover of various foundations, pacs & 501(c)4 groups?
Let's look at it just a little different:
If Sarah Palin were running and one of the first issues she decided to take on was abortion and then it came out that she had had more abortions than anyone in history, would you think she was a hypocrite?
I'd think she was a moron because she has established that.
Now if it were some unnamed candidate that was similar to Palin. I'd have to hear her out, I'm fine with people changing their opinions.
I would not vote for her the abortion issue has been resolved why keep wanting to revisit it. Furthermore how would you deal with a woman who does everything possible to end a pregnancy jail her until she gives birth to a baby she doesn't want? Then what?
Would you kindly answer my question?
Would she be a hypocrite? What if she had an abortion right after announcing that ending abortion was her main objective. Would she be a hypocrite?
Palin would still be a moron. I believe I answered the question here
Now if it were some unnamed candidate that was similar to Palin. I'd have to hear her out, I'm fine with people changing their opinions
Not having a good reading day huh?
She announces she is going to end abortion, then has an abortion, then keeps on trying to end abortion.
Hypocrite or not?