The Next Election, Political News, and Other Forms of Comedy (US, UK, & Intl)

I love how the rolling stones, bunch of commie fucks keep making fun of the GOP, but they still can't acknowledge how shitty is the DNC and it only has two days so far!

Untitled.webp
 
DNC should be closed down for carrying around Communist flags and not even having one US flag, although I hear this has now changed. What a bunch of assholes.
 
You might want to listen to the first 2 minutes of this video. Here is supposed to be a computer programmer giving testimony that he wrote a prototype to rig the election.

PROOF Elections are RIGGED!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXTasakdQbc

I believe Hilary was selected years ago by the elites. The elections are just a show for the slaves so they can falsely believe they have a choice, IMO. Why would the elites give ordinary people a say???...it wouldn't make any sense for them to do that.
 
The Shooman said:
I believe Hilary was selected years ago by the elites. The elections are just a show for the slaves so they can falsely believe they have a choice, IMO.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the reasons Trump is, and this is serious, interesting. Literally no one in the establishment wants him. That actually makes him attractive.
 
I would tend to think Trump IS establishment. Why? Because ample clues suggest he is. Let me give you four reasons why he may be establishment.

1). I couldn't imagine him being so successful in business and getting all those contracts if he wasn't establishment. I wouldn't think people become billionaires if they were not are connected to the establishment.

2). THE SYMBOLS!!! All secret society...the pyramid, the 666 and the hand over chest (from Vigilant Christian video).
66fc64e3-5f1c-48eb-9861-803533a1e7d7_zpsjy817jhk.jpg

fa5529c3-24f0-44f0-b8f7-bd10946325d0_zpsejcyysku.jpg


3). Fox news promotes him, and so does Alex Jones. Fox is well known for protecting the establishment and suspiciously promote Trump. They have never been for the people or freedom of speech.

4). Trump looks like he is mates with the Clintons. They all look pretty chummy `eh. Check it out!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=trump+with+clinton's+picture&sa=X&biw=1680&bih=925&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved=0ahUKEwiBu4v3kJPOAhVmAsAKHUGjBb8QsAQIGg#imgrc=giRUU1QRYSPiRM:

TrumpBClinton_zpsr6olswbd.png


I think they are all in it together (Clintons and Trump) and laughing at us because they know they are fooling the slaves, YET AGAIN!!! The establishment know how to con people....they used "time for change" with Obama and said we should have the first black president, and now they want the first women president or a man who isn't establishment. See...the establishment will say whatever they know can con people, and in this case it is trying to establish the fact that Trump isn't establishment.

5). He has had a major t.v show based around him. I couldn't imagine having a major t.v show based around you and not being establishment, no way!

Will Trump win? Probably not, but it was certainly an interesting social experiment from the establishment to see how the slaves react.
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered who internet commentators actually were. Then I met our Euro contingent and it all made sense.
 
I also found this fairly hilarious. Bill O'Reilly, rebutting Michelle Obama's noting of slave labor used to build the White House.

“Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government”
Click to expand...
 
The mother of one of the Orlando shooting victims just spoke. How could she possibly support HRod, who is supporting more refugees from countries where gays are killed for being gay.
 
pay attention to the last paragraph. bolding mine.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/0...ow-believes-turn-into-dangerous-policies.html

Syria And The DNC Hack - How Beliefs Turn Into Dangerous Policies
Two examples came up today of people who seem to cope easily with contradicting beliefs.

A well known pro-Syrian rebels dude posted these two tweets within 15 minutes of each other:

6:31 AM - 27 Jul 2016 - Hasan Sari Verified account @HasanSari7
300,000+ civilians in E. Aleppo (40klm) under bombardment & will be starving in 2 weeks as Castillo road cut. Bad.

6:44 AM - 27 Jul 2016- Hasan Sari Verified account @HasanSari7
Out of 300k residents in Eastern Aleppo 30-40k remained there.

300,000 people are under bombardment in an area where - says the same person - only 30,000 people remain.

The 30,000 number is about correct. In March 2015 Martin Chulov of the Guardian visited east Aleppo and estimated that some 40,000 were still living there. He has since re-confirmed that 2015 observation but the number it must have shrunk since. There has been no running water there for a long time and no electricity. Only fighters and their immediate families are left in east-Aleppo. The current estimate is some 5,000 fighters and 20-25,000 civilians. They have, according to multiple sources, food and medical supplies for about three month.

The area is completely closed off though people on foot can leave through checkpoints. The Syrian government sent SMS to invite everyone in the area, civilians and fighters, to get out without trouble. This is all well known to "western" journalists but will no hinder them to daily offer dozens of harrowing accounts of the 300,000 starving children in east-Aleppo and the 286 hospitals that just now were bombed to rubble.

Here is another example of contradicting believes in the news. NBCnews headlines: Why Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked the DNC Emails.

Many U.S. officials and cyber security experts in and out of government are convinced that state-sponsored Russian hackers are the ones who stole 20,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee and leaked them to the public just in time to disrupt the Democrats' national convention in Philadelphia. Here's why the experts are so confident the Russians did it:
[... innuendo and marketing talk from cyber snakeoil dealers ...]

Then follows this paragraph:

Like other cyber-experts, however, [retired four-star Adm. James] Stavridis said definitively proving such connections is virtually impossible. "I don't know the answer to that and I'm not sure anyone knows the answer to that except for a few individuals in the Kremlin."
So experts are "sure", says the piece, while the quoted expert and his colleagues say there is no way to be sure. How does that compute?

does the same and more, says former Bush administration lawyer Jack Goldsmith. But there is no evidence at all, as in zero, that some Russian government service did so. There is no evidence at all that some Russian directly or indirectly gave the hacked DNC emails to Wikileaks. The alleged proof does not make sense. The culprits could be anyonewith the relevant resources.

The case is probably like the Sony hack which the U.S. government and Sony stitched to North Korea while the real experts said it was an insider attack.

But the media has order to promote Clinton for president and to damn Trump, as well as Putin, wherever it can. Thus Trump is Putin and Putin personally hacked the DNC email servers. What DNC or Clinton crimes were documented in those emails is not of interest and does not matter at all.

For believers in their mission, be it damning the Syrian president Assad or promoting Hillary for U.S. president, any contradiction only confirms their faith.

This is hard to swallow for observers outside of such faith. One can smile and accept such contradictions as funny phenomena. But they can be dangerous when they build upon each other and create their own reality:

Every time a claim of attribution is made — right or wrong — it becomes part of a permanent record; an un-verifiable provenance that is built upon by the next security researcher or startup who wants to grab a headline, and by the one after him, and the one after her. The most sensational of those claims are almost assured of international media attention, and if they align with U.S. policy interests, they rapidly move from unverified theory to fact.
For hawks it will follow from such facts that one has to bomb Russia. This for a harmless, routine hack Russia has likely nothing to do with. Or that Assad must be assassinated and the Syrian people deliver to Jihadis because of some fake number.

This is why such contradictions must be dragged into the light and exposed as the nonsense they are.
 
Obama admin will be the first to cry foul couple months ago when DNC was hacked if its really a Russian job. Not a bunch of left wing journalists yelling the wolf is coming after some of the hacked emails got leaked.
 
doghouse said:
I also found this fairly hilarious. Bill O'Reilly, rebutting Michelle Obama's noting of slave labor used to build the White House.
Click to expand...

He's actually right. But they were still slaves and he's clumsy for trying to point that out. A better argument would be that Michelle could always not sleep there if she's that upset about something that happened almost 200 years ago.
 
Let niggers be niggers. They will complain till the end of days about something that happened over 200 years ago. Blacks are a different story.
 
John Lee Pettimore III said:
He's actually right. But they were still slaves and he's clumsy for trying to point that out. A better argument would be that Michelle could always not sleep there if she's that upset about something that happened almost 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

He's actually not. They were woefully treated and slept in a single barn.

Sounds to me like Mrs. Obama wasn't upset, but joyous that things have changed so much.
 
doghouse said:
He's actually not. They were woefully treated and slept in a single barn.
Click to expand...
yes, but the comparison was to the treatment of other slaves, not to the treatment of the white population. as narrow minded of a point to make as that is.
 
more tea leaves

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-and-lifelong-democrats-are-voting-trump.html

‘PARTY LEFT US’
07.26.16 10:10 PM ET
Why These Union Members and Lifelong Democrats Are Voting Trump
Their national unions have endorsed Hillary Clinton, but some members say they’ll pull the lever for Trump, who’s promising to bring back American manufacturing and get tough on China.
David Kemper and his wife are union members and lifelong Democrats. But the Kempers and their 20-year-old son, Nicholas, are planning to vote for Donald Trump in November.

“Growing up we were very strong Democrats, but the Democrat party left us,” David Kemper said, standing at the back of a Ted Cruz barbecue near the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last week. He had traveled from Minnesota to the RNC to be with Nicholas, who was an alternate Texas delegate for Trump.

When the Kempers vote for Trump, they’ll be breaking with the leadership of their national unions, which have both endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. “I’m in the CWA, my wife is American Federation of Teachers, but we felt like the unions have left us, too,” said David Kemper.


The split between labor leaders and union members lies at the center of Trump’s potential path to the White House, which includes winning over a swath of Rust Belt states from Pennsylvania to Ohio, thanks to his cross-party appeal among traditionally Democratic union workers.

But labor leaders across the country are warning that Trump’s promises to bring back American manufacturing by ditching bad trade deals and getting tough on China are nothing more than Trump’s latest and greatest scam. The direction labor voters follow will make or break Trump’s chances in November.

Tom Conway, the international vice president of United Steelworkers union, is supporting Clinton, but he knows some rank-and-file members are considering voting for the Republican nominee.

“Trump has figured out this anger and this angst, and he’s running a campaign on it,” Conway said. “But for me personally, you look at his history. All he knows is how to manufacture offshore.”

Conway, a hulking, barrel-chested man, started working at the Burns Harbor Works of Bethlehem Steel during the Carter administration and said he’s seen union members vote Republican for many reasons over the years, including gun rights and social issues. But he views the Trump-Pence campaign as something different and uniquely dishonest.


“It’s frustrating and it just is angering that they are willing to use the position of so many people who have been hurt so badly in this economy and not come forward with a serious solution,” Conway said. “He says, ‘I’m going to fix China currency manipulation and trade, and here’s my guy who’s going to do it, Mike Pence.’ Mike Pence is the worst person you could roll forward on this issue. He’s voted for every possible trade agreement he could. He has no credibility.”

Joe Coccio, treasure of the Transport Workers’ Union Local 234 in Pennsylvania, also supports Clinton and echoed the mistrust of Trump.

“I think Hillary Clinton’s record speaks pretty loudly and her experience, as well. How can you argue with that when you have Trump, who does the complete opposite, who has no record, who has no background, and in fact has the opposite background?” he said. “Look at any of his work and any of his defunct companies.”

Like Conway, Coccio pointed to the records of Republican governors—from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin and Kansas—as examples of what he sees as the Republican Party’s long fight against workers’ rights that voters should remember in November.

“What Trump says and what the Republican Party actually does are two completely different things,” Coccio said.

A central issue for labor leaders and union members alike is international trade, which nearly all agree has led to the decimation of American manufacturing in the wake of sweeping agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Conway said he trusts Clinton to spike the latest trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, even though she and running mate Tim Kaine both supported it in the past.

GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read theTerms of Use and Privacy Policy

Despite leaders’ warnings, Trump seems to have found fertile territory among the workers whose factories closed in the last 15 years as jobs were shipped overseas.

His trade policies can be boiled down to a few slogans, including his promises to “get tough with China,” negotiate “great trade deals,” and bolt from the World Trade Organization. Mostly, though, he just promises that American workers are going to win.

But Gene Sperling, the national economic adviser to Presidents Clinton and Obama, argued that there is no reason to believe Trump’s promises on trade or the economy generally.

“Even if you believe he’s fighting for trade deals, why would anyone possibly think that they would be on behalf of U.S. workers, as opposed to organizations like the Trump Organization to take even more advantage of race-to-the-bottom labor and environmental policies?” Sperling said. “My question is, ‘What in his record would suggest otherwise?’ Zip.”

But Trump is clearly getting through to at least some of the blue-collar workers who voted for Democrats as recently as 2012. In six polls conducted this month, Trump leads Clinton, 58 percent to 30 percent, among white voters without a college degree, a major improvement over Mitt Romney’s performance four years ago, according to a New York Times analysis.

On an individual personal level, it rarely takes much time at a Trump or RNC event these days to find union members like the Kempers in Cleveland ready to vote against Clinton and the Democrats and their own union leadership, by casting a vote for Trump.

“The factories, I actually believe he will get those up and going again in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, the Rust Belt,” Nicholas Kemper said. “I think he’ll do a good job with those states.”

His dad nodded in agreement, but added, “Of course we don’t have a track record with him,” he said. “So we don’t really know.”
 
Rambo said:
yes, but the comparison was to the treatment of other slaves, not to the treatment of the white population. as narrow minded of a point to make as that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much my point. Only O'Reilly would think it was worth bringing up.
 
doghouse said:
He's actually not. They were woefully treated and slept in a single barn.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point on Ms. Obama, but I think your views on how the slaves were treated lack context. This was a time when white soldiers and sailors were routinely whipped for offenses and poor whites lived in really shitty conditions.

I highly recommend reading Slavery in Florida by Larry Rivers (a black professor at FAMU). Sorry for the tangent, but it's interesting to read about the differences in slavery as administered by the English, Dutch, and Scots-Irish vs. as administered by the Spanish. The Spanish employed a system where the slaves were given a task to do in a given day and once they were done, they had the rest of the day off. They were expected to be mostly self-sufficient. (Many slaves, regardless of ownership, had Saturday off and almost all had Sunday off). The WASPs employed a system where the slaves had to work from sun-up to sun-down and were expected to tend to their own affairs on Saturdays or at night. They were given more supports than the Spanish system, but I have no doubt the quality was minimal. Florida began with WASPs using the Spanish system but then as the Spanish influenced waned, importation of slaves stopped, and the Spanish-system's competitive economic disadvantage evidenced itself even more, most of Florida adopted the more barbaric WASP system.

But as I stated previously, the White House builders were still slaves and that's shitty. And it's shitty for a modern-day white guy to act as if slavery was acceptable.
 
John Lee Pettimore III said:
I agree with your point on Ms. Obama, but I think your views on how the slaves were treated lack context. This was a time when white soldiers and sailors were routinely whipped for offenses and poor whites lived in really shitty conditions.

I highly recommend reading Slavery in Florida by Larry Rivers (a black professor at FAMU). Sorry for the tangent, but it's interesting to read about the differences in slavery as administered by the English, Dutch, and Scots-Irish vs. as administered by the Spanish. The Spanish employed a system where the slaves were given a task to do in a given day and once they were done, they had the rest of the day off. They were expected to be mostly self-sufficient. (Many slaves, regardless of ownership, had Saturday off and almost all had Sunday off). The WASPs employed a system where the slaves had to work from sun-up to sun-down and were expected to tend to their own affairs on Saturdays or at night. They were given more supports than the Spanish system, but I have no doubt the quality was minimal. Florida began with WASPs using the Spanish system but then as the Spanish influenced waned, importation of slaves stopped, and the Spanish-system's competitive economic disadvantage evidenced itself even more, most of Florida adopted the WASP system.

But as I stated previously, the White House builders were still slaves and that's shitty. And it's shitty for a modern-day white guy to act as if slavery was acceptable.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a really good read, I'll check it out.
 
doghouse said:
That sounds like a really good read, I'll check it out.
Click to expand...

It presents a real moral conundrum. I think society's view of slavery has undergone a dramatic pendulum swift - from the ridiculous "those happy negroes just loved working" nonsense of Gone With the Wind to the over-the-top, in-no-way-economically-logical barbarism depicted in Django Unchained. I think the real answer lies more toward Django but it's still a little jarring to watch that movie and think "oh come on, it wasn't that bad."

It was bad, but like all things, there's a lot of nuance that's uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. Kind of like how we scorn Sea World because of it's animal cruelty yet ignore the fact that millions of Americans keep castrated wolves in 900 square foot apartments for 23.5 hours a day.

We're all horrifically cruel, it's just how cruel that is up for debate.
 
John Lee Pettimore III said:
It presents a real moral conundrum. I think society's view of slavery has undergone a dramatic pendulum swift - from the ridiculous "those happy negroes just loved working" nonsense of Gone With the Wind to the over-the-top, in-no-way-economically-logical barbarism depicted in Django Unchained. I think the real answer lies more toward Django but it's still a little jarring to watch that movie and think "oh come on, it wasn't that bad."

It was bad, but like all things, there's a lot of nuance that's uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. Kind of like how we scorn Sea World because of it's animal cruelty yet ignore the fact that millions of Americans keep castrated wolves in 900 square foot apartments for 23.5 hours a day.

We're all horrifically cruel, it's just how cruel that is up for debate.
Click to expand...

Well, to get really into the weeds, it comes down how you define slavery. Which in this day and age is almost verboten to ask. There are a lot of governments that keep their citizens defacto slaves to this very day. And there was more white slavery in history than black. It's extremely complex and yes, the bugaboo word for the current crop of superficial thinkers, nuanced, which means no one can talk about it without screaming over each other.

Add in the the slave existence wasn't remotely uniform, some had comfortable existences, some were in a living hell, add in a bit of powewrlessnes felt by all, and it's really unruly.

Your last point is exactly it. FWIW we seem to be getting less cruel. At least my house kept lupine slave tells me I'm ok. Usually with bad breath and farts.
 
https://newrepublic.com/article/135564/dnc-one-big-corporate-bribe

fd4e50e6d070d1474530679565beda5dc450821d.jpeg

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The DNC Is One Big Corporate Bribe
Drink up—it's on us! Then go protest the TPP to your heart’s content.
BY DAVID DAYEN
July 27, 2016


To get to the Democratic National Convention, you take the subway to the AT&T Station and walk to the Wells Fargo Center. Along the way, you’ll stroll by the Comcast Xfinity Live complex, where delegates and honored guests can booze it up. You’ll also see the “Cars Move America” exhibit, an actual showroom sponsored by Ford, GM, Toyota, and others. Finally, you’ll reach your seat and watch Democrats explain why we have to reduce the power of big corporations in America.

No, the DNC Didn’t Rig the Primary in Favor of Hillary
Party conventions have always been collection points for big money. But many major corporations sat out last week’s Republican gathering for fear of Trump contamination. There’s no such reticence here in Philadelphia; in fact, it feels like they’re making up for that lack of investment.

It’s hard to ferret out all the special interests at the DNC, because there’s no full public schedule. Invitations are doled out individually, and people whisper about this or that event. But enter any official hotel where a delegation is staying, or any Philadelphia landmark, and you’re likely to have a complimentary drink thrust into your hand.

As Politico’s Ben White reported on Monday, private equity firm Blackstone has a meet-and-greet on Thursday. Independence Blue Cross, the southeastern Pennsylvania arm of the large insurer, held a host-committee reception Tuesday; their chief executive is the finance chair of that host committee. The same day, Le Meridien hotel had a private event for Bloomberg LP, and the Logan Hotel hosted “Inspiring Women, a Luncheon Discussion.” The sponsors included Johnson & Johnson, Walgreens, AFLAC, the Financial Services Roundtable (the industry trade lobby), and New York Life. (How many people were they serving, given the number of corporations involved?)


Facebook commandeered a bar inside the Wells Fargo Center for delegates and guests. Twitter rented out an entire restaurant, bestowing attendees with free breakfast, lunch and an open bar. (Full disclosure: I had a slider and some salad. The way I see it, I’ve boosted their market value through the free labor of tweeting and deserve something back.) And when the speeches end, convention-goers fan out to a sea of mostly industry-sponsored parties. A particular favorite of convention delegates is the Distilled Spirits Council kickoff, which in Philadelphia featured music from Jason Isbell and former Eagle Joe Walsh.

Those are just the liquor and cocktail-weenie bribes. An entire other category of corporate cash goes toward “policy discussions,” must-see educational roundtables with a host of luminaries. On Tuesday, Obama campaign guru David Plouffe (now with Uber) and Gore consultant Chris Lehane (now with Airbnb) unveiled new polling data on the sharing economy; a second Airbnb event celebrated the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Party, featuring actor Bryan Cranston. On Wednesday, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation convenes its own technology conference, featuring four members of Congress, a Federal Trade Commission member, the president of the biotech lobby, representatives from Microsoft and Facebook, and former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, now at Amazon.

refuses to disclose the names despite a court order, allowing corporate benefactors to hide behind anonymity. The 2014 “CRomnibus” budget law massively increased contribution limits for political convention committees, which can raise up to $800,000 from a single donor per year. And overlooked by emails showing possible anti-Bernie Sanders bias by DNC officials in the Democratic primaries, the WikiLeaks trove released last Friday actually detailedhow the DNC woos big donors with gifts and perks.

The whole spectacle is not technically considered lobbying, but it may have a more insidious effect. Not only are elected officials compromised by their proximity to big money—a version of this happens daily in Washington, after all—but the delegates, usually the grassroots activists most likely to pressure their members of Congress to stand up for Democratic values, get caught up in the muck as well.

Big money didn’t necessarily overshadow Day 2 of the convention, with the historic selection of the first female president and a succession of speakers hailing Hillary Clinton’s lifetime of work. But it pervaded the whole scene. Right before the roll-call vote, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, himself one of the most prodigious corporate fundraisers in Democratic history, addressed the convention. In an interview directly afterward, he suggested that Clinton would eventually come around and support the Trans-Pacific Partnership corporate trade deal, “with some tweaks.” Clinton campaign aide John Podesta had to refute McAuliffe; for his part, Podesta has jumped in and out of government and corporate lobbying for three decades.

Wasserman Schultz, supposedly banished to Florida after resigning as DNC chair, was still hanging around Philadelphia, and slipped into the Wells Fargo Center to watch the roll call. She got to see the vice presidential nomination of her predecessor as lead party fundraiser, Tim Kaine, who ran the DNC from 2009 to 2011. During the roll call, lobbyists with the Society for Human Resource Management, which helpedstall the signature equal pay bill in Congress, cheered from the floor.

Former Attorney General and corporate lawyer Eric Holder took time off from his work with Uber and Airbnb to address the convention. Former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, now Global Chief Communications Officer for McDonald’s, showed up in a video. Howard Dean praised Hillary Clinton on health care, but strangely left out her support for the public option. Perhaps that’s because he’s a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, which doesn’t want government insurance plans driving down prices. Even former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who added her praise of Clinton to others’ on Tuesday night, has her own lobbying firm. And Tuesday closer Bill Clinton also has a certain, er, comfort with the corporate world.

The best speech I saw on Tuesday happened five miles from the Wells Fargo Center. In an afternoon address she should have unleashed the previous night—and not sponsored by anyone but her own Senate office—Elizabeth Warren gave a couple hundred delegates a Power Point presentation showing how the economy shifted from broadly shared prosperity to a funnel of practically everything to the very top.

The average American holds 15 times more debt than a generation ago, Warren noted, and one in three with a credit file is dealing with a debt collector. “I went to college for $50 a semester,” Warren said, but now fixed costs on education and health care have skyrocketed, making it impossible for the middle class to keep up. The reason: disinvestment in the public good, deregulation of banks and industry, and policies that pushed practically all economic gains upward.

Warren pointed the finger directly at lobbying, which grew seven-fold in the past 30 years. After the speech, I asked her about the corporate underwriting of practically everything in Philadelphia this week. “Too many CEOs have learned that they can invest millions in Washington and get billions in return with special deals with the government,” she said. “This is the central issue of 2016.”

You wouldn’t know that from the official, industry-sponsored proceedings. Maybe the ideological split within the Democratic Party has something to do with Bernie Sanders’s supporters distaste for the ostentatious display of corporate money, and how it has affected the party. The rare moment when overturning Citizens Unitedgets a mention in a convention speech, loud whoops and cheers go up. But corporate influence on the party goes way beyond SuperPACs and campaign contributions; in Philadelphia, it is everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom