2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSome HRC supporters are as fact aversive
as the Republicans:
She did support W's fraudulent, murderous invasion of Iraq (got WMD?);
She does receive $200,000 (or so) for willingly speaking to the predatory likes of Goldman Sachs, and when asked
to release the scripts, she laughs in response (a variation on "let them eat cake" ;
Her daughter does have an affiliation with the Peter Peterson (another billionaire Reagan hack) Foundation; one of its missions is to dismantle or privatize Social Security;
She does take campaign contributions from Wall Street.
If these can be refuted, please post. Thank you.
DURHAM D
(32,847 posts)So what?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Not condoned and yes, can you prove it?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Obviously a antisemitic assertion if that is what is intended.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I heard middle class is when you can afford a gardener, housekeeper, private schools, nanny, and vacations.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)mwooldri
(10,421 posts)My reply makes as much sense.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)dems are just that - old world republicans sprung from the loins of Edmund Burke. They lost influence in their own party, so they invaded ours with their incremental change, defending the traditional meaning of marriage, welfare reform, tough on crime, cutting taxes, scepticism of democracy, and much much more.
chapdrum
(930 posts)and I agree, though not certain about just how much "[T]hey lost influence in their own party."
Would like to see that much further manifest, so we no longer have to pin our
hopes on the likes of Obama and the Clintons.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)let us stipulate that everything that the poster says is true, and Hillary wins the primary election and the nomination.
What will the Original Poster do?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)There are plenty of facts about Hillary and her daughter that one could enumerate, list, recite and which may or may not be relevant to a discussion of the primary election.
So in the catalogue of facts pertaining to Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, let us assume that they are all true.
Let us assume that they are all true, and Hillary wins the nomination.
What would the OP do given that result in the primaries?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)You don't think the unjustified invasion of an independent country is relevant to the primary?!?!? What the fuck? Adorned?
Every single fact listed in the OP is true. No assumption. Your question is unrelated to the facts of the OP.
I'm not going to dignify your absurd question, obviously designed to elicit a TOS violation, with a response as your post makes it clear that you may not think the invasion and ultimate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is relevant to a presidential primary.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)The OP presents some facts, that are relevant to the primary. There are alot of facts about Hillary and Chelsea. I'll let you and the OP decide which of the catalog of facts about them are relevant to the primary.
Lets line up all the facts about Hillary and Chelsea that you and the OP think are relevant to this primary. Just do it in your heads.
I'll wait.....
Okay, now imagine that Hillary Clinton wins the primary and the Democratic Presidential Nomination.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)in the primary?
There is none. Therefore your question is ridiculous and frankly insulting. I refuse to answer it.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And that there is one of 'em. Good job, Jon
senz
(11,945 posts)There is no reason for you to hijack the thread with personal questions to the OP.
Whatever they do, it's nobody's business but their own.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Does the OP expect to have their facts disputed? Must Hillary's supporters be aversive to facts in order to support her candidacy? There are a lot of facts about Hillary Clinton.
senz
(11,945 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)And yet the OPs choices are nobody's business. Got it...
senz
(11,945 posts)Too illogical; I don't wish to engage with you any further.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)We all have a right to privacy in that regard. You are pushing your luck with this ugly game you are playing.
It's none of your goddamn business. It's personal. If he chooses to say who he is voting for, at some point in time, that's his choice. You do not have the right to brow beat him into doing it for your satisfaction.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)All my other posts in this thread have been in response to others. I have not initiated any exchanges in this thread beyond my original question to the OP.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)I asked my question only once, and it was to the OP.
They are free to answer or not. And I am free to answer any question or comment posed to me.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)*just curious, how will jon know what the OP (Durham) do?
(question implied, not outright asked)
(complaining that your question has not been answered)
(again implying the question being asked)
I'd call this harassment.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)several challenges. People keep asking; I keep responding. I have only asked the question once to the OP. I've restated it both rhetorically and as a matter of staying on point--but not to the OP.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)How is your post relevant? Would her winning the nomination change any of these facts?
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Let's assume they are all true.
If Hillary wins the nomination, (this is GD rimaries) what will the OP do?
(That is an awesome typo, BTW. Should be "GD: Primaries" I think I'll leave it.)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)What will the OP do if this or that has nothing to do with the post. Zero.
There are "many facts about Hillary Clinton." The ones listed happen to be very relevant ones. Respond to those.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Lets assume that this OP stays open until the Democratic Convention, and nobody disputes these facts.
What will the poster do if Chelsea's Mom wins the nomination?
The OP wishes to elicit a response, no? Hillary Clinton is a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, no?
Elections are choices, no?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Then the OP lists some facts and challenges that the facts be disputed. Let's say that I acknowledge the OPs facts. Let's say that I, and enough others, vote for Hillary so that she wins the nomination.
Unknown Beatle
(2,688 posts)You're digging yourself in deeper.
You're stating than if Hillary wins the nomination, what will the OP do? Right? Okay, got that.
But the OP doesn't want to answer. Let it go.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)I made one comment to the OP. All my subsequent posts have been in response to others.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)you said it yourself.
the op wants the facts disputed. that's the topic at hand.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Should they remove their comments? I have not changed the subject. I accept the premise. I am not disputing "the facts." I draw certain conclusions about Hillary's suitability for the job from a multitude of facts about Hillary Clinton.
What is the purpose of the OP? It states that some Hillary supporters are as fact averse as the Republicans. I am not disputing the facts in the OP; I take them into account in my decision to support Hillary. I take a lot of facts into account.
The OP impugns some of Hillary's supporters as being fact-averse. Fine. Some may be, and others are not. So does the OP then accept as valid the support for Hillary from the non-fact-averse?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)hiding behind the defense of "well no one else is disputing it" is not really a good angle.
you acknowledged the question of the OP. Now you know it. that's all.
I don't expect answers from anyone, so there's no need to plead your case to me. I don't care what you do. you asked what the issues were, I told ya.
what you do now, is up to you.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)I ask what the OP will do if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, given those same facts. Whether the OP answers is up to them.
I openly support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I am not hiding behind anything.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)dispute the claims. that's all.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)eom
senz
(11,945 posts)Is it any of your business?
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Then the OP lists some facts. Now are all Hillary supporters as averse to facts as are Republicans, or just some Hillary supporters?
Which Hillary supporters deny the facts, which ones have an aversion to the facts and which ones acknowledge the facts. Are the facts not true in all cases?
And yet there are Hillary supporters. A lot of them.
edit to add: The OP calls out Hillary supporters choices in the face of facts that the OP presents.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Given that Hillary has shown she is not worthy of the nomination, but since there is a chance that she somehow gets nominated, what would we do?
Gawd, the idea is just to damned awful to contemplate.
An easier question to answer would be : If Godzilla attacks your town, what would we do?
As for H... all we can do is try and make sure she loses, again. Right?
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Let's say that, not only are Hillary supporters fact-averse, but that they are generally uninformed and lacking of any empathy beyond wanting to win. How would you ever hope to ever win them over, given their sheer density?
Does a Hillary nomination equate to a cataclysm?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If she wins the party will die.
But let's realize that most H supporters are just lazy and will do what they are told. Those, as the votes come in and they find out who Bernie is ... well, H will lose their votes.
Back to you and the OP: How can you continue to support H when you know how bad her record is?
Arazi
(7,001 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)what those facts mean regarding her being the right person for the job. That we weigh them differently or consider the context of her record differently is not being fact-averse, adjectives notwithstanding.
If one's choice to support Hillary is to be impugned by the OP against a few facts, then it is well within one's right to point out that those facts might be starring right back at the OP come the general election.
Unknown Beatle
(2,688 posts)Facts are facts, there's no discounting them even though people try hard to either hide them or spin them until the facts are lost to people that aren't paying attention. And the OP states that Hillary supporters are fact averse, which to my understanding, they are very fact averse. They call facts and truth about their preferred candidate smears. Imagine that, facts and truth are smears, doesn't get more fact averse than that.
All I can say that if Hillary becomes president, we're fucked. Not only will the middle class almost completely disappear, she'll start more wars in the ME. That's only two of a few things that will completely fuck up this country.
LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)Whether Hillary's supporters are fact averse or not, she may gain the Democratic nomination. Your decision will then be how to best stave off the destruction of the planet, I suppose.
Unknown Beatle
(2,688 posts)You're right, the last paragraph was devoid of facts. Nothing in her history would suggest that she would do any of those things.
Read this to see where Clinton stands on war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/hillary-clintons-libya_b_8590130.html
Google the rest - Hillary Clinton On War
Read this to see where Clinton stands on the middle class.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/23/9780162/clinton-middle-class-tax
Google the rest - Hillary Clinton Middle Class
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,562 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)ecstatic
(34,481 posts)and will vote for Sanders if he's the nominee. That being said:
(she did support W's fraudulent, murderous invasion of Iraq (got WMD?);
I know and I was thoroughly disgusted and angry with her for that. I think she's learned from that experience, and I hope she surrounds herself with advisers and an SOS who prefer peace as the first option.
She does receive $200,000 (or so) for willingly speaking to the predatory likes of Goldman Sachs, and when asked
to release the scripts, she laughs in response (a variation on "let them eat cake" ;
So what? I don't spend my time hating the rich nor worrying about how much speaking fees someone takes in. Sorry, not a priority.
Her daughter does have an affiliation with the Peter Peterson (another billionaire Reagan hack) Foundation; one of its missions is to dismantle or privatize Social Security;
More details please? On the face of it, it seems like another non-issue. Guilt by association. Yawn.
She does take campaign contributions from Wall Street.
Another yawn/ so what for me. I don't hate Wall Street. Just regulate it, enforce the laws, and move on. Many Americans (democrats included) work, invest, or have 401ks tied to Wall Street and are not looking to have Wall Street shut down by anti-capitalists.
chapdrum
(930 posts)As to Iraq: For heaven's sake, she's married to a former president. She didn't see what was coming? Highly unlikely.
More likely: Just like BushCo, she doesn't give a damn.
As to Goldman Sachs: I don't "worry" either, nor do I hate the rich. There are legitimate gains and ill-gotten gains; we know which ones GS received, as they took them out of our hide and are well-poised to do so again, if they feel like it (must be nice).
The foundation of Wall Street is a house of cards (nothing new there). We could decide to do away with it (Wall Street and corporations are not immutable laws of nature, but we treat them exactly like they are), but we'd rather not bother. Better to give them the opportunity to willfully crash the economy yet again and. like Hillary, go to the beast, take its money for speeches, and then refuse to disclose the contents of same (which is ok as a private citizen but not, in my view, as a presidential candidate).
When I find details of Chelsea's affiliation (if they've not been removed from the Peterson site), they will be posted.
chapdrum
(930 posts)The link below is to a pdf download of an IRS Form 990 filed by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF) in 2014. (Peterson was Secretary of Commerce under Nixon.)
On page 39, there is the title "Attachment 21." On the far left side, under the field "Recipient Name and Address," the "Clinton Global Initiative" (in NYC) is found at the bottom of p. 39.
http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/Tax-Form-990-2014-PF.pdf
Per Wikipedia: "In 2008, (Peterson} founded the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, an organization devoted to spreading public awareness on fiscal sustainability issues related to...Social Security policy."
"From 2007 to 2011, Peterson is reported to have contributed $458,000,000 to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation to promote the cause of fiscal responsibility..."
Note (via DU'er Hedda_Foil's post on this thread) the presence of the PGPF (Peterson's son Michael) at a healthcare confab attended by Bill Clinton (Sorry - he is as close as I could get to Chelsea; guess his presence will have to suffice). Also at the confab is a Harvard rep, another of PGPF's recipients.
hedda_foil
(16,513 posts)Goodling only got me this, which is cringeworthy but unlikely to be what you're implying.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press-releases/president-clinton-chelsea-clinton-host-fourth-annual-health-matters-summit
Healthcare Summit
Indian Wells, CAOn January 25 26, President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton will host the Clinton Foundations fourth annual Health Matters Activation Summit, which each year brings together leaders from a variety of health fields to identify strategies for systemic health improvement and ways to implement those strategies. This years Summit convenes innovators from healthcare, public policy, business, education, and sports industries. The Summit will be held in Indian Wells, California, in conjunction with the Humana Challenge in partnership with the Clinton Foundation PGA TOUR event on January 20 25 in La Quinta, and the final event in the Clinton Foundations Womens Health Codeathon series from January 16 18 in Los Angeles. Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a title sponsor for this event.
The Health Matters Activation Summit is the embodiment of the continued work of the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI) throughout the year to improve the health and well-being of all people throughout the United States. CHMI, an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, activates individuals, communities, and organizations to make meaningful contributions to the health of others. Through work in local communities and programs dedicated to improving the health of everyday Americans, Health Matters positively impacts 75 million lives.
Closing Plenary Health and the Economy
Crystal Ballroom
The Economics of Healthcare Transformation: A moderated discussion among the nations leading experts and authorities on the healthcare system, clinical care, economics and finance.
Moderator
President Bill Clinton Founder, Clinton Foundation and 42nd President of the United States
Panelists
Trevor Fetter, President and CEO, Tenet Healthcare
Michael Peterson, President and COO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Bruce Broussard, President and CEO, Humana
Steve Beshear, Governor of Kentucky
Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, Professor of Health Economics and Policy, Harvard University
chapdrum
(930 posts)This is helpful.
There is also the "Clinton Global Initiative" in NYC. This may or may not be in addition to the Clinton Foundation noted.
hedda_foil
(16,513 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)Will look again.
chapdrum
(930 posts)In the headline
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)and if she was, would she be asked to sell it?
Are any of the candidates being asked to sell their homes, expensive or not?
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)was mere months ago. They must have known about her millions months ago. Apparently she gets hundreds of thousand for teaching gigs and who knows what else. She used to be a Republican. All of that is fine, though. Strange. The lofty standards only apply to Clinton.
Jane Sanders got a $200,000 Golden Parachute from a former employer. I don't know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer; do you?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)R B Garr
(17,385 posts)Yes or no. Do you know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)"CEO gets golden parachute" will tell you plenty of CEOs that leave with 100 million or more.
100 million or more.
that's why Jane Sanders paltry 200,000 is merely a sort of severance pay appropriate for her former position.
not a golden parachute.
besides, Hillary gives private chats to banks for 600,000 a pop so... severance pay vs private banker conferences... hmmm I wonder what's more troubling to me....
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)colleges like she did? It was a Golden Parachute, that's a fact.
You are now just making excuses and trying to hide behind some arbitrary mindless Google searches. Hey, the Kardashians get millions, too. It says so on the Google machine!
Yes or no, do you know anyone who has gotten $200,000 from a former employer?
Fearless
(18,458 posts)Let me guess, retirement packages are a unicorn too?
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)Golden Parachute. LOL that you are trying to wordsmith to avoid facts.
Looks like there is plenty of fact adversity from Bernie fans.
Fearless
(18,458 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)200,000 is a severance package.
100 million golden parachute is an obscene amount of money for someone to take after falling a business.
you're really coming off as desperate.
Response to retrowire (Reply #101)
Post removed
R B Garr
(17,385 posts)so-called facts are really just a personal bias. I'm more troubled by the hypocrisy of someone claiming to be financially pure but it turns out to be phony propaganda. That's why Jane Sander's $200,000 is more concerning. It is truly ill-gotten.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)R B Garr
(17,385 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:14 PM - Edit history (2)
oooooo. lololol wtf.
The Sanders berate others for financial practices that they themselves have benefitted from. Spare me the phony superiority complex.
And as to your disingenuous complaint about me harassing you in this thread. YOU are the one who called me desperate and went personal because you cannot accept the facts about Jane Sanders payoff so you tried to shut me up another way. Let people be aware that you resort to these tactics. How pathetic...
And you edited again after saying that I was harassing you by responding. LOL. How silly The point is that the Sanders benefit from financial practices that they campaign on as being unethical, yet they benefitted from the same practices. That's dishonest. Your biased sidebars about who else.got what are irrelevant
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Jane got a meager 200,000 compared to all these presidents for her retirement package. check the link.
the median salary for a university president in Vermont is 250,000-300,000
Jane's retirement package was less than her yearly salary.
that is as reasonable and legitimate as you can get.
Hillary gets 600,000 for a private speech with the people who are actually screwing over our nation and you're concerned by a reasonable retirement package?
lob1
(3,820 posts)Z_California
(650 posts)You just disqualified yourself from reasonable and intellectually honest discussion.
uponit7771
(91,930 posts)enid602
(9,079 posts)What does 'fact aversive' mean, anyway? Is that like 'fact-averse?'
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)OhZone
(3,216 posts)And team Clinton raised taxes on the rich in the early 90s leading to prosperity. I'm pretty sure he had rich doners AND he knew he would be in the upper tax brackets eventually.
Most politicians are well off or get well off.
Doesn't mean as much as you think, or there would be no democrats at all.
Ford_Prefect
(8,209 posts)nor approve their plans to pillage what is left of the world economy. He spent much of his career fighting corruption in NY government. You can't make superficial similarities into substantive meaning because you don't appear to be able to see the difference between a paid shill and a principled leader. You fail political logic 101.
OhZone
(3,216 posts)does not mean she'll do anything else.
My work pays me pretty well, but after work I do nothing special for them.
You're just assuming EVERYBODY is corrupt.
It's pretty sad.
Ford_Prefect
(8,209 posts)and are expressing their agenda by that investment.
When was the last time you were paid that kind of money to present your ideas on international trade agreements to a trade association who has a direct interest in the outcome of those agreements?
chapdrum
(930 posts)Laughing at the request to release her speech scripts speaks for itself.
Again: A private citizen can withhold. A presidential candidate (presumably) also can. The question is: What kind of message does that send to the voters?
uponit7771
(91,930 posts)OhZone
(3,216 posts)Again, Team Clinton raised taxes on the rich, despite knowing that they'd be well off eventually, AND whatever doners or friends might have to pay a little more.
In fact, that bilL, THAT NOT ONE CON VOTED FOR, is credited for a large part of the prosperity of the post Bush Sr 90s.
Team Clinton is the team that did that. Don't assume that they'd be influenced now, when they weren't then.
ALSO, her Wall Street bill has been called stronger than Bernie's.
JohnnyRingo
(19,360 posts)ie: "Some supporters are fact aversive".
Sanders is promising to pull rabbits out of his hat to circumvent congress which will undoubtedly work to restrict him to anything other than picking out his own necktie, let alone sweeping social changes.
Imagine an administration that kills off insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross to institute govt health care. How can Congress possibly stop him?
Can you see a future where Wall Street knuckles under because a democratic president wants to end corporate greed? Who would oppose that besides most of the Senate?
What kind of magic wand would guarantee free college for all without raising sin taxes on the middle class?
There's no word if David Copperfield is available as a running mate.
chapdrum
(930 posts)Of course he'd have an uphill battle.
It takes a lot of courage to speak out publicly, and in unmistakable language, against the forces that are working diligently to tear down our country.
Hillary courts them; that's the difference.
Z_California
(650 posts)Congrats on continuing the false narrative.
JohnnyRingo
(19,360 posts)Sanders has repeatedly promised, much to the delight of his supporters, to grant single payer health care to everyone. That's wonderful, but it obviously means an end to big insurance companies that will not go down without a fight. Completely a non-starter considering Obamacare began as just such a plan. Cooperation from lawmakers whose campaigns are partly funded by the insurance giants will deny him from the onset.
Sanders garners great enthusiasm from supporters for promising to reform Wall Street and take down the big banks. Once again, these are some of the biggest lobbys in the country and change will happen very slowly if at all. Remember when Occupy Wall Street was going to bring about reform? Another promise beyond what he can deliver.
Finally, I don't need a link to reference Bernie's promise to send everyone to college for free. It's been a foundation of his campaign for months. All he has to do is either raise taxes or convince Yale to hand out free educations. Obviously the former is the only option, but it requires congress to tell their constituents that they voted to raise their taxes. That'll be one mean trick indeed.
Congrats on continuing the false narrative that Sanders can accomplish great things without the consent of congress. He's a great statesman, but he's no Merlin. If you doubt Sanders made any of these promises, I invite you on a trip to the greatest threads page where such posts are recced to high heaven on a daily basis.
Z_California
(650 posts)Bernie has stated over and over again that this will take a political revolution. He hasn't promised to "grant" anything.
You've made an assertion that bears no resemblance to reality. Not surprisingly, the HRC campaign is playing your same riff.
JohnnyRingo
(19,360 posts)...there's no reason to take the chance of losing the White House by promoting someone from the far left. Might as well go with the favored candidate instead of alienating the moderate voters who traditionally elect our presidents.
I can hear Bernie's slogan now: "No we can't!".
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)If you support her you really end up supporting the Bush Family.
chapdrum
(930 posts)The uber-rich take care of their own; they belong to the same club.
Their kind of wealth transcends ostensible or petty political divergences.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And worse there's an even smaller club the Bushes allowed the Clintons into. You know there had to be quid pro quo. All investigations into the Bushes were stymied in 1993 and 2009.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)uponit7771
(91,930 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)if they consider themselves to be Democrats .Why we harp on Hillary Clinton is because day after day the issue of economic equality is sidestepped by her while it is very important to more than 99 percent of us ........Cue the commie comments in 3. 2. 1.
pandr32
(12,238 posts)...and laid out her very serious concerns at the time. Funny that is never mentioned, or that the "evidence" had been falsified in the first place, or that Sanders' "nay" vote was symbolic, and then he turned right around and voted to fully fund the "murderous invasion" which he and his supporters neglect to mention now.
Political rhetoric at its best from a seasoned career politician.
Sanders voted for the legislation that deregulated derivatives and credit-default swaps in 2000 that contributed to the crash of the economy (and to grant Enron and other BIG OIL companies exemption from any regulatory trading oversight), and he has voted to fully fund every single war measure. He is really pretty darn conservative and in-step with some pretty nasty players.
chapdrum
(930 posts)If you have any remaining interest, please see #36.