Uglygirl Clinton the corrupt demonstrates her purchase price

[sirs]

The assertion is that Clinton is:
Incompotent
Irresponsible
Reckless
Pathological liar
...and yes, corrupt.

Your "perhaps" insinuation holds no water, without some facts to support it

ANY ONE of the GOP nominees is a stellar upgrade from the trainreck the Democrats are pushing.  But thanks again for not being able to refute the big bucks that have bought off Clinton, 10x over the nearest GOP nominee

[Xavier_Onassis]

Now it is up to you to provide proof that Clinton has received ten times more from corporations than Clinton.

Which you cannot do.  And will not do.

[sirs]

Don't have to.  The record and graphs presented, speak for themselves

[Xavier_Onassis]

You cannot prove that it is ten tmes greater unless you supply the amounts the Republicans received.

[Christians4LessGvt]

You cannot prove that it is ten tmes greater unless you supply the amounts the Republicans received.

If we are talking over-all money Hillary is probably way ahead...if you count the tens, if not hundred million for the Speeches.
If you want to pretend those millions and millions for speeches are not in reality donations then I have a bridge to sell you.

This appeared in the NY Slimes....it may be somewhat accurate and tell part of the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

[sirs]

You cannot prove that it is ten tmes greater unless you supply the amounts the Republicans received.

Don't need to.  Just showing how much all these big companies continued to purchase her influence and power completely debunks her ongoing talking points on just how "tough" she'd be, if push came to shove.  She'd fold like a cheap pantsuit

[Plane]

  If Hillary Clinton has accepted no more than the loans that are causing such problems for Cruz, then shouldn't she be considered equally beholden to the banks as Cruz might be?

    Of if she has accepted more and as gifts ands fees rather than as loans then why isn't she even more beholden?

     I think Bernie Sanders is setting a very good precedent in eschewing support from corporations that he might want to oppose as president.

       Even if he does not get elected , he can prove it possible to get into the running without huge corporate support.

  I wish more of my favorites had this feature.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sanders knows that corporations would not donate to his campaign anyway.

This should have been made illegal long ago.

Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

But a majority of the Supremes are buddies pf the corporations.

[Plane]

Sanders knows that corporations would not donate to his campaign anyway.

This should have been made illegal long ago.

Corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

But a majority of the Supremes are buddies pf the corporations.

How are corporations not people ?

Are Courts people?

Are courts people that have corporations as buddies?

It isn't just the language that is fuddled up here.