"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)........is launching a second run for the White House in 2020." breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-bid
"Reaction to the news was split......with some supporting the 77-year-old and others upset with the move." foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-pokes-fun-at-bernie-sanders-2020-announcement-as-reaction-splits-on-candidacy
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:15AM (4 children)
1. You don't know who murdered Seth Rich. Nobody does.
2. Yup, the routine of telling the bankers one thing and the plebs something else was a problem. That said, you don't know who she was lying to, Goldman or the voters. Also, that's probably not a bigger problem than Donald Trump living in an alternate universe that changes from day to day. Had HRC been running against, say, Dwight Eisenhower, I would have voted for Ike.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:11AM (1 child)
That decision is not difficult in any way to be honest.
Had HRC been running against an inanimate carbon rod, I would have voted for the inanimate carbon rod.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:37PM
Unfortunately for all of us, she was running against someone who has demonstrated he can do a lot more damage than an inanimate carbon rod.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:03PM
Who has the money? Voters: nope. Wall St: yep.
We know who she was lying to and anyone who doesn't is deluded.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday February 24 2019, @04:21PM
The motivation was certainly there, and it is by far the most powerful motivation of all realistic choices. The means was there. The circumstances contradict the official narrative. Are you asking people to believe in a highly unlikely coincidence? Do you apply this reasoning to all your positions, or just ones that support your particular internal narrative?