This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's a blanket definition that would include a wide variety of material under state and city control, public records laws aren't intended to make things less transparent. - The city just loaned out 15 mill that's the people's money, the DNC has no right to withhold that information from them, and the FEC isn't even intervening.
Like I said...I'm fine with a wash at this point. If you think lying for 40 years is significantly different than lying for 30-35 years, you draw that arbitrary line and run with it. If you think that lying over real estate deals is significantly different than lying over matters of national security, run with it.
Link?
You realize that the delay is 60 days or so, right? And this issue is potentially extremely complicated - your conclusions are just entirely superficial.
From a big picture overview this is what you want if you are the GOP...honesty and a "rigged system" are major issues in this election...if you are the DNC I would think you would want this issue resolved ASAP so the perception is reality BS doesn't take over with something like this...
I really don't care about the DNC (or the RNC) here, to me the public should have control over their own money and information. But yeah, you're right. We speculate here, DP, we speculate. We have no more insight into this stuff than the four corners of that article gives us.
Now read Article VI of the Constitution. Then read up on Supremacy Clause jurisprudence. Then read the federal legislation cited by the committee as well as the state open records law cited by the journalist and consider whether this might be a case of express preemption, conflict preemption or field preemption. Once you've done that you'd be qualified to pass judgment on this matter.
I've only read the linked article, but the DNC's argument here does not seem reasonable.
There you go, Saints. Fatguy saved you hours of boring as #### reading. :confetti:
I'm not sure why Kaine would be a mistake, in fact it is probably the smart choice. Hillary is the favorite and he is a safe choice. While progressives might not like it, I don't see them switching to Trump or for that matter Stein in any significant numbers. I would think there is more of a danger of her losing votes from folks in the political center if she were to go with a progressive candidate than picking a centrist candidate and losing the progressive vote.
You don't pick the best qualified, you pick the one that can win you a state or two that is contested. Also, Hillary is posing as a woman so she already covered that base. No reason for another woman on the ticket.
Those people called that man a bigot. Thats it, im going to votevote for him.
She picks Kaine she loses many Sanders supports and some go to Trump. Fear and lying about bring back jobs will win every time over political correctness and wall street. The train is barrelling down the tracks. You better look up and switch tracks before it runs you over.
I know many accomplished people voting Trump and I the only reason I can come up with is fear. He is backing the cops 100%, US jobs/trade agreements, keeping out terrorists and illegals without being pc this draws a lot of votes while praying on fear.
I really don't care who wins as long as the markets go up. So when Hillary wins, it will be good for me. Trump seriously has no chance. This is a one person race against her own stupidity. All she has to do is reign it in for the next few months.
Fooling lemmings is what Trump is doing with Pence
She is already in trouble. The diehard Hildos are not enough to defeat Trump. If she loses Bernie voters it is over. The R's are rallying around Trump, she can not pull enough of those votes.
Personally I don't care. I want Warren because she has been so splendid in taking Trump down.
This doesn't matter to anyone but the people already voting HRC. You need votes, he will not get you enough. All Trump does is lie and he keeps getting more support, you need to combat that. IMO Warren is the only answer.
Has she really? Her tweets and comments seem to be more of the same, in that they reinforce the beliefs of people who already hate Trump. I'm not sure she (or anyone, for that matter) is converting people who like Trump, or convincing "undecideds" to come out and vote Clinton.
I disagree here. Warren is my favorite crusader against the "too big to fail" gang, and with the Democrats in a good position to lock up House/Senate/Presidency she can do a lot more good at the policy level than she can as a ribbon cutter at grocery store openings.
If by "lose Bernie voters" you mean they won't vote for Trump, I agree.
If Warren were the VP nominee, Trump would turn it into a referendum on "Pocahontas" and issues would go out the door. Kaine doesn't have much to hit -- Trump's lame nickname for him would probably be "Boring Tim,"
Unless it is to appease the Bernie voters I think Warren is a bad choice...she has her own fibbing issues/rigged system issues...that plays right to where Trump wants to take this election...also, she is vastly over-rated as a speaker...she usually has a few points that she relentlessly hammers home but I think that would get very stale over a long period of time...also, I just don't see her attracting many Independents...can't find the data but I believe Scott Brown won that vote by a decent margin in their election...now if the dems feel that locking down the Bernie vote is the key to success than this choice makes sense...other than that I don't see it...they would be better off having her take shots at Trump from the sideline and trying to distract him...
Yea I am not seeing that much cross over between Bernie and Trump. Trump keeps acting like he can win over those people, which is weird because Bernie stands for exactly the opposite that we are all in this together and we as a country can overcome these problems.
That has zero to do with this...Coakley was literally the worst candidate in history...she also lost to Charlie Baker...after the Coakley loss the dem machine was firing on all cylinders in a very blue state...they felt they got caught napping in the Coakley/Brown election as they thought it would be a cakewalk and took that election for granted which they did not do with Warren...her election had zero to do about Independents voting for her...
