It’s amazing the lengths you’ll go to blame other people for your mistakes and avoid accepting any personal responsibility.
But he can’t say that if she says “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”.
Was this addressed to me? 
Seventh grade civics, Mr Whatshisface instructing the class on the evils of socialism. (I totally approved.)
“If you were getting an A, is it fair to make that a C so some guy doesn’t get an F? Would you do that?”.
“Yes” from somewhere in the back. “I’m a Christian, I have to.”
Ronny McIntire, if you’re out there, good on you. You were right, I was wrong and so was he.
Is this Goldman Sacks Fifth Avenue?
And remember, Trump married two immigrants, taking good jobs away from American women. Do you care? Of course not.
Marrying Donald Trump is the equivalent of picking lettuce. No American women want that job.
From CNBC…not Faux News
Headline: Wall Street tells Hillary Clinton: We’ll cut you off if you pick Elizabeth Warren
“If Clinton picked Warren , her whole base on Wall Street would leave her,” one top Democratic donor who has helped raise millions for Clinton told me. “They would literally just say, ‘We have no qualms with you moving left, we understand all the things you’ve had to do because of Bernie Sanders, but if you are going there with Warren, we just can’t trust you, you’ve killed it.’”
Yeah, she’s a Wall Street puppet.
Well, maybe. The source is this one guy, apparently. Says he speaks for all those other guys. Well, maybe.
And, frankly, I rather doubt that Ms Warren is the most likely, or even the best, pick. Besides, ticket wise, she’s a woman, and HRC’s got that one pretty well down. From Massacussetts, already bluish, certainly looks bluish. And if Sanders can’t or won’t get the sulking progressives on board, why would we think she could? For my two bits, she’s better right where she is.
Remember Theodore Roosevelt? How the Oink Lobby of New York urged him for the Vice President nomination to “kick him upstairs” and get him out of their hair? Some our current crop of greedfreaks are smart enough to see that VP Warren might be less of a pill than Sen. Warren. I agree, which is why I want her right where she is.
Our financial and investment “industries” have become exciting. Which is appropriate, perhaps, for a casino. She thinks it should be dull, reliable, and solid. I think she’s right. And I’m not just saying that because she is so hot! She is, but that isn’t why!
Said the conservative propagandist.
Source is one guy, but ‘conservative propaganda’ (from another post)? I don’t see that. There’s general truth in the idea that picking Warren is Hillary reducing the ‘strategic ambiguity’ of how far left she has moved, insofar as support not only from donors but a lot of ordinary voters. For some the leftier the better, for a lot of others not as much. MA ‘bluish’? I assume that’s a joke. It may be conventional and boring to pick a running mate from a swing state, but it probably actually works if that’s also a reasonable candidate as a standalone. Likewise picking somebody who checks a different ‘diversity’ box, if a good candidate otherwise.
Clinton picking Warren means she feels too weak to get the left wing of the Democrats solidly behind her otherwise. If she feels stronger, she’s probably better off with somebody like Sherrod Brown, Tim Kaine etc (swing state) or Julian Castro, Tom Perez etc. (Hispanic). And also there’s a matter of generating a bench for the future, Warren will be 74 in 2024.
For those who say ‘Hillary will win no matter what’, fine, and I also believe it’s more likely she wins that not w/ any reasonable VP pick. But it would be political malpractice for her advisers or her not to try to maximize the winning likelihood, with a person qualified to be Pres if need be.
If she wants the left behind her, she should go with Sherrod Brown. He is not as well known as Warren, but he is solidly liberal, and he is from a swing state, so a twofer. Tim Kaine is swing state, but I believe he is fairly moderate, so no help with the left. I would think Castro would be a good pick, from what I have heard (Not that much really) he is fairly left and Hispanic, plus he is young and has experience as mayor of San Antonio and head of HUD. (Okay, he had some issues there with the mortgage thing, but no one is perfect.)
I dunno. The quality of Trump’s arguments and those who accept them might mean freaking out over someone named Castro.
On the other hand, it might be a way to cement his anti-Latino bigotry.
Well, you do now.
And don’t forget that Monica Lewinsky, who’s also running, has a 2nd cousin who delivered pizza to one of the East Coast’s biggest child pornographers. The more you learn about the Clintons, the more you start to worry that Trump will lose to the Satanic forces of darkness.
Keep clutching those pearls.
What do you imagine Lloyd Blankfein CEO of Gold Man Sacks gave Chelsea Clinton whose husband is business partners with Blankfein for her baby shower? Bundles of unmarked 100 dollar bills? Did he run into Hillary at the baby shower? Is there an equivalent to a Godfather in the Jewish religion and will CEO Lloyd Blankfein of Gold Man Sacks serve in that capacity so that he will conveniently run into Hillary? Speaking of man sacks, how many Wall Street leaders be at the bris?
Anyone in Trump’s camp who freaks out over the name Castro is already a lost cause. They refer to our current president as Barry HUSSEIN Obama.
And the benefit of picking Castro is that both the Hispanic voters now considering siding with Trump would be secured for the Democratic ticket.
Could we possibly see a more accurate representation of the Republican party line?
Try using the actual name of the corporation, or go back to the Faux News boards.
Yes, yes, and hell, yes, I want my Senator to stay right where she is and not be dead-ended into the veep slot. Fortunately, she’s smart enough and dedicated enough to see it that way too, I devoutly believe.
I have the impression she’s trying out for the running mate position, and doing a good job of it at that.
Coming back around: assuming this comes up at the debates, which way do we figure this goes? Is it more likely that Hillary takes a shot at Trump for not releasing his tax returns, at which point he presumably responds with some rehearsed quip about her speeches – or is it that he brings up her speeches, and she presumably responds with a rehearsed quip about his tax returns?
(Or do we figure neither will make the first move on their own initiative, since the reply is so obvious – such that, I dunno, it’s just going to come down to which one of them happens to get specifically asked about it by the moderator du jour?)
I think she has to state things about his tax returns as facts. State that Trump paid little to no taxes over the years, has been much, much less successful that he claims and that he donated next to nothing to charity. If he denies that these are true, she just mentions that he can definitively prove that by releasing his tax returns. Until he does, we assume the worst.