Great. The next Broadway hit will be a re-make of West Side Story.
Only, instead of Sharks vs. Jets it will be Gays vs. Straights.
And instead of chains and knives it will be semi-auto weapons.
Should be a smash.
" I honestly don't think he wants the job, only the attention that comes with campaigning."
Even *assuming** that the FBI is willing to pursue the matter...
The O admin will throttle any effort to indict or otherwise accuse.
Remember those "wild west" towns of Tombstone and Dodge?
What did they require cowpokes to do when the came to town to drink and carouse? Check their guns.
That's right. There was no carrying of guns, open or concealed, in Tombstone.
The first law passed by the municipal government of Dodge City? That's right. Gun control. No concealed carry.
You must be willfully ignoring the whole of the Clinton's involvement in public affairs. There are **books** written about the #$%$ they've pulled over the years.
No question; Trump is a fibber, too.
But compared to the Clintons, he's just a school yard bully. HC is malicious bordering on malevolent. Rather like some of the autocrats governing in sub-Saharan Africa or one of the banana Republics.
And there's nothing that she's done that's been well done. Usually the opposite.
I know which "reset" button **I** would like to push....
Hello Mr. Shores,
From your post: "She probably shops online, or has an assistant shop, or a high end store would actually bring a sampling to her wherever she is.
Wasn't there a "scandal" over this a few years back when Repubs outfitted Palin and her family with new duds? She caught flack on the campaign trail.
And didn't Carly Fiorina get heckled over a $700 pair of shoes that she wore to one of the debates?
Again... I don't much care what they wear.
I'd be happy with a candidate who had a proven record as a world-class shopper. It might serve the nation well if they have a demonstrated history of bargain hunting. Just think how much our Federal budget might REALLY buy if we had a *serious* shopper in charge.
Chris Chistie would probably take issue with the idea that "looks" don't matter to male politicians.
As for women... personally, I really couldn't care less what they wear.
Though, that said, Ms. Clinton seems... unique... in her ability to look like an escapee from a Russian gulag regardless of what she's wearing. Angela Merkel, hardly a lithe fashion model herself, seems positively stylish in comparison.
Still, no one needs to spend $10k on a jacket to appear:
c) trendy or
d) cover their butt
I think Nikk "nailed" it when he hypothesized that she might need to wear expensive clothes to "feel more secure in the world". If true, that's a very sad statement about Ms. Clinton's self image.
Just received notification that my insurance carrier (Anthem) has filed for a 26.8% rate increase.
This wouldn't be so annoying if:
a) the rate I pay did not more than DOUBLE when ACA went into effect (for essentially the same coverage that I had pre-ACA) and
b) there had not already been several rate increases following the double of cost
It's just... amazing... that those idiots in Washington actually thought they could expand coverages to MORE people and, somehow, as if by magic, rates would go DOWN.
Once again proving, perhaps, the saying that: "common sense is neither".
A choice between Trump and Clinton would be like having to choose between Berlusconi and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.
The rubes in the main parties have managed to bring US politics down to the level of Italy and Argentina.
Is it any wonder the Founders made an effort to establish the US as a **republic** rather than as a democracy??
If HC needs a $12,495 Armani jacket to "feel more secure in the world", that's fine. Not sure it's an indicator of the sort of psychological traits that one would want in one's "leaders", but.... no problem with the wardrobe issue.
But the OP did make a legitimate point. If the observation about the jacket is correct, HC is playing the inequality "thing" to secure votes all the while trotting around in ridiculously expensive threads. See the hypocrisy?
Sorry. Missed that one.
Get the greens to line up behind nuke the way they have behind renewables, regardless of cost or viability, and it will take off.
TWR's get a bad rap because, amongst other things, they're "breeder reactors" - they create, and then consume, plutonium.
But it's that process that would allow them to consume existing nuke waste as part of their fuel.
No question. Hillary DOES know what she's doing.
AND she's an "evil, incompetent liar".
Her perfidies are **intentional**, not mistakes.
Trump's comment is "racist" in the same way that Hillary's perspective on BLM and other social issues are both "racist" and "sexist".
The difference is that the media rarely hold Dems to account on their hypocrisy.