How effective would they really have to be to swing less than 1% of the vote? Especially considerign that half the population hs an IQ of 100 or less.
Forgive me...I was being sarcastic... I'll restate... She was so fucking awful that people thought a 2016 version of a clown was better than her. That's not a good plan.
(However, if this scuttle about her getting the house by using all her cards then I have to give her evil ass credit...Neutral evil will win this one...I hope we get Bernie.
Both parties are for the rich and powerful. But at least dems pretend to care about the poor and some actually start programs for the poor.
@jorj the issue is what poor we r talking about. Trump appealed to the poor whites bc they tought coal jobs were all they had and this rapist Mexicans. I don’t see how false promises and even xenophobic promises were reasonable for a president. We knew Clinton was lying but she was just going to maintain the growth that Obama work built after 2008, good for upper middle class and minority poor, not for the poor white man, true. All I see from trump is stock exchange went up (do poor white people invest in this?)...no more coal jobs bc coal is dead and not much coal left while solar is cheaper now (the tariffs took away other jobs, didn’t increase steel or coal). Trumps tax plan also taxes the poor more...I don’t know why the poor trust republican promises that always end against their favor...
yes she did
Pffft... the FBI was/is in her back pocket, or she'd be in prison. And if she hadn't have done the stupid shit she did, Mr. Assange wouldn't have had anything to report. That bitch beat herself...
@Captain_Feelgood Much better to have the FBI in your back pocket than to be in Putin's back pocket as is the case for Trump.
I'd still prefer Clinton to the orange abomination that is currently infesting the White House. Trump has set the bar so low we're going to need a backhoe to find it again.
THIS