Grey explains Texas

[sirs]

Forget someone?  Lemme help......not Clinton

[Plane]

And which candidate is rejecting money from the lobbyists?

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

Trump.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

But that isn't enough to make him my favorite.

I almost consider him his own lobby.

Rand Paul
https://www.randpaul.com/news
But that isn't enough to make him my favorite.

He is choosy about where his money is from , or is it the other way around??

I like that he has an alternate career as an Eye surgeon, if his political career is threatened he is not threatened with destitution.

Carly Fiorina
 https://carlyforpresident.com/meet-carly
She is probably willing to accept big contributions , but it is not happening so much, yet. With Mrs. Fiorina I would not expect her to Kowtow to the moneyed interests very much, but I do expect her to understand them.
She is definitely one of my favorites.

Our founders never intended us to have a professional political class. They believed that citizens and leaders needed to step forward. If you believe that it's time for citizens to stand up to the political class and say enough, then join us. 

John Kasich
https://johnkasich.com/resultsnow/

I like this guy , even though he wants to do a few things I don't like.
To break out of the pack, he needs a lot more money spent.
Where will he get it and what will he owe for it?
That is the original question again.

Ben Carson
https://www.bencarson.com/

I like this guy a lot , and most of his contributors so far have been small donors.
His inexperience in dealing with Political lobbyists is a potential serious problem, could he be tricked , blackmailed?
Would he accept a big bundle from a PAC or Corporation?
I think this depends on the quid and the pro quo that was involved, I expect him to preserve his integrity.



Hillary Rodham Clinton
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/
If I were a Saudi Prince I would vote for Hillary, I would want my vote to follow my cash.


Bernie Sanders
https://secure.berniesanders.com/

I like this guy, he turns some money down and has a history of voting according to what he considers right.
If he was not an advocate of so many things I think are backwards I might like to vote for him.
Of the whole crowd this seems to be the one with the best attitude about gratitude to contributors.

I imagine his tenure as Vice President will be notable, if Hillary is elected.

  This web site>http://www.fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do has more details than I can digest or recount here, good charts.
I am amazed at how much contributions are coming from Florida.
I was surprised that HRC and BTS both had more contributions than any Republican.

I was pleasantly surprised that BSC has by far the most contributions of any Republican so far.

[Plane]

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/

2016 Presidential Race

The contest to become the 45th president of the United States marks the first race since 2008 in which there's no incumbent on the ballot. That, of course, was a historic election, bringing the nation its first black commander in chief. In 2016, American voters could again make history by electing the first female president, or the first with Cuban parents, or the first whose father and brother have also been presidents – or maybe the first with multiple super PACs and dark money groups working exclusively to get him or her elected.

Very good chart here compares the funding sources of the candidates.


 Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina  Look good in terms of where they owe their money .

Donald Trump  and Bernie Sanders Look excellent on the same chart.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is now possible to donate money and hide its origins completely. I think this is done within a PAC.
I think that Jeb! has the potential of having the most money to spend.
He does not seem to be much of a campaigner.

[Plane]

  You ought to see some of the info on those charts, too much to just repeat.

  I am worried that Hillary Clinton still has a real chance to be elected even after it has become well known that foreign concerns are sneaking her a lot of money.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/07/hillary-will-dodge-the-press-and-win-anyway.html

...... her claim that her subpar numbers for trustworthiness in recent polls could be attributed to her political antagonists — a “barrage of attacks that are largely fomented by and coming from the right.” That is false. The largest wellspring of mistrust in Hillary Clinton is being generated by such non-right-wing news organizations as the Washington Post and the Times, which have done major journalistic investigations into the financial murk of the Clinton Foundation and will continue to do so. (The Clinton team also blamed the right for vilifying the July 4 rope incident, but again it was the mainstream press that most strenuously called attention to it.) The public’s mistrust of Clinton is further compounded by her failure to answer questions about any controversy in a timely and convincing manner, an evasiveness that surfaced yet again when she batted away foundation questions on CNN.

[sirs]

It is now possible to donate money and hide its origins completely.

Yea, and it does appear Clinton has mastered that tactic

I think that Jeb! has the potential of having the most money to spend.

And yet the people have pretty much said "no".  Funny how money didn't buy the GOP front runner

[Xavier_Onassis]

Since no one knows how much money each candidate actually has raised, we will never know the exact relationship. They all have their price, but that price is secret.

The polls are not an accurate index at this date. They are just conversation topics.

No one ever knows even the basic details until the Fat Lady has sung, after the last primary has passed.

[sirs]

Hmm.....so in other words, everything said/accused/opined about a republican is to be taken as gospel, but anything accused/opined about a democrat (Clinton inparticular) can be discarded since polls are are not accurate and no one knows exactly what monies might be involved.....just conversation topics

Is that about right?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yeah, sure, that is how you seem to think.

[sirs]

No, that's simply applying your form of rationalization

[Xavier_Onassis]

Foolish chucklehead.

Texas will not secede. Watch carefully how that does not happen.

[sirs]

Watch even more carefully how my comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with Texas

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is the subject of this thread.
Your comments are a waste of time.
Like the squawking of a parrot.

[sirs]

So much a "waste of time" you seem to keep responding to them       Point being your deflection attempt was pretty much a waste of time, since it was so transparent.  Cudos on helping to hilight it all the more