No surprise:
   

Dear Illegal Immigrants..


Meanwhile, there is a lot of HRC supporters at this one particular agency...

   

(10-26-2016 04:45 PM)iop890 Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 03:02 PM)rotekz Wrote:  

WOW! It's fucking nothing!

That was a bigly disappointing faggotry.

^ Guess Kim Dotcom's never heard the expression "Don't write a check your ass can't cash." Very disappointing.

Kim Dotcom, put up or shut up. Fucking phaggot.

What a faggot. Fuck that guy.

It's something, I guess:
   
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/...berry.html

Source: Government workers shun Trump, give big money to Clinton

Quote:Federal government employees are opening their wallets to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump on Nov. 8.

Of the roughly $2 million that federal workers from 14 agencies spent on presidential politics by the end of September, about $1.9 million, or 95 percent, went to the Democratic nominee’s campaign, according to an analysis by The Hill.

Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.
Employees of the Department of Justice, which investigated Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of State, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations. Trump received $8,756 from DOJ employees compared with $286,797 for Clinton. From IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations.

Federal government employees overwhelmingly backed Clinton’s presidential campaign no matter which agency The Hill analyzed using Federal Election Commission data covering donors giving more than $200.

Trump campaign spokesman Jason Miller said these donation patterns are more evidence of the “rigged system” favoring establishment candidates like Clinton over outsiders like Trump. The Trump campaign has been citing lopsided media donations to Clinton — though there’s no evidence they’re coming from reporters covering Trump — as further evidence that the game is fixed.

But David Schultz, a Hamline University Professor of Political Science, said government employees have historically favored Democratic candidates over Republicans both in their voting habits and political contributions made in their personal time.

Under the Hatch Act, federal government employees are banned from engaging in political activities, including making campaign contributions, during work hours.

“Government employees are, on balance, more moderate or more liberal as opposed to the general population,” Schultz said. “Not across the board, but in general.”

Government employees are “more likely to believe in government as opposed to, let’s say, a privatization program,” he added, “programs that we would view as hostile to government.”

Republicans typically campaign on promises to slash government payrolls, which helps explain why recent GOP presidential candidates have received the smaller share of donations from government workers.

Yet while Republicans usually do worse than Democrats, Trump appears to be doing especially poorly in fundraising from government employees.

The 2012 GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, received 14 percent of donations from the same group of agencies surveyed for Trump. Trump received just 5 percent.

Romney got close to $300,000 more from these same departments’ employees than Trump has four years later. Comparisons to previous presidential candidates are of limited value, since they took public funding for their general election campaigns.

Trump might have had a chance to do better than Romney. He discarded much of Republican orthodoxy during his primary campaign, which could have led some federal employees to believe that he’d be more amenable to big government. He vowed, for example, to leave massive social welfare programs virtually untouched.

But Trump also constantly attacked federal institutions. During his primary campaign, he described the federal government as a corrupt, bloated body run by “very, very, stupid people.”

Trump vowed “tremendous cutting” of the government in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in January and singled out the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency as agencies he’d slash dramatically if not outright eliminate.

Agency employees have likely taken note of Trump’s hostile rhetoric. In the Department of Education’s case, that included Trump’s pledges to hand over control to the states and to fight tooth and nail against Common Core standards.

From Department of Education employees this cycle, Trump received three donations totaling $220. Clinton received 724 donations for more than $74,000. In all, she received 99.7 percent of donations from employees of the department.

Donations from the State Department, which Clinton ran from 2009 to 2013, were even more slanted in her favor. State Department employees gave Trump 39 donations, for $4,652. Over the same time period, they gave their former boss 2,518 donations, for $425,525.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has portrayed himself as a strongman who would toughen up America’s defenses — both militarily and at the border — and who would take care of veterans. It’s probably no coincidence, therefore, that Trump performed best in donations among employees of three agencies: Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

But even employees of these more Trump-friendly agencies have overwhelmingly contributed to Clinton’s campaign. From Defense employees, Trump received 341 donations for $43,575. Clinton got 2,392 donations for $225,560, giving her 84 percent of the money. From Homeland Security employees, Clinton got 90 percent of the donations, and from Veterans Affairs she took 88 percent.

Romney performed significantly better than Trump with employees at all three agencies, receiving, for example, $98,153 from Defense employees, which amounted 21 percent of donations.

During the Republican primaries, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said, “Let’s create a little bit of a recession in Washington, D.C., so that we can have economic prosperity outside of Washington.” Fear of such plans might be the truest explanation of these uniformly lopsided donations.

Schultz, the Hamline professor, said “self-preservation”— particularly for workers engaged in public sector unions — probably motivates their political giving.

“This means support for their jobs,” he said. “Clinton, for the most part, is going to be probably a continuation of more or less what Obama is.”

Federal government employees, he said, are likely “more willing to give to somebody who would be more predictable in terms of supporting their livelihood, their jobs, as opposed to somebody who might be less predictable.”

(10-26-2016 09:04 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  ^ Guess Kim Dotcom's never heard the expression "Don't write a check your ass can't cash." Very disappointing.

There may yet be hope. A redditor's theory based on other tweets:

Quote:PSA - Kim Dotcom's "you got mail" tweet to Wikileaks is saying that he sent Hillary's 33k emails to Wikileaks. His next tweet that he sent to Trey Gowdy instructs how federal official's can verify the SOON-TO-BE-RELEASED HILLARY DELETED EMAIL LEAKS. Checkmate

He also protects himself from getting extradited to the US for fear of his life. It's a perfect checkmate.
The emails will be released to the public

They will be damning

Gowdy has an avenue to verify they're real

It will be reported about

"Russia's doing it" narrative gets BTFO

The media will have to talk about X-keyscore and the unconstitutional NSA spying on everyone.

"Hillary & Co" go to prison

America can begin to heal

MAGA:

^ I really hope it's true

(10-26-2016 04:50 PM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  No surprise:

He's even uglier in real life.

God level hover hand

Would anyone bang Chelsea Clinton?

Alright, let's be honest.

The wikileaks don't have a smoking gun and the media isn't covering it like they should.

The polls suck because the media is duping the public into thinking Hillary's winning by higher margins than she actually is (assuming this is true; I still don't know how a "D+9" or whatever makes a difference because I thought the weighting was proportional - someone please explain this to me even via PM if possible because I'm confused).

On top of this, the Project Veritas videos have also been deemed irrelevant by the MSM.

While I love the effort from the good members here, reddit and the conservative media to bring these components to light, the only thing that really makes a difference at this point is getting the message of Trump across to the voters. Attacks on Hillary will likely from these things I just mentioned will just as much be ignored by her "true" supporters. Why? Because they have been out a little while and things have not shifted as significantly as they should although that may be a fallacy creating by "massaging" the polls.

What I mean is bashing Hillary time is over (even though I thought it was right to do so a few weeks ago). It's fun but it doesn't sway the voters. I don't think people know Trump's plans well enough and that needs to be communicated. His campaign's $140m ad blitz should partially do the trick, but as some voters said before, get the word out there because we can get the independents.

^

Relevant (Stefan Molyneux):

Starts at 27:20 in this video:

Quote:[–]Dirty_CopNV 1 point 3 minutes ago
3 lobbyists, one of which is related to Podesta, were hired to lobby the Clinton state department on behalf of an arms manufacturer.
All 3 lobbyists are also Clinton campaign donation bundlers.
The arms manufacturer received 3 massive contracts, much larger than previous contracts, for over 19 BILLION dollars.
None of the 3 lobbyists continued to work as lobbyists after Clinton left the state department.

Note: one of the lobbyists was HEATHER PODESTA

(10-26-2016 10:45 PM)AneroidOcean Wrote:  

(10-26-2016 09:04 PM)LeoneVolpe Wrote:  ^ Guess Kim Dotcom's never heard the expression "Don't write a check your ass can't cash." Very disappointing.

There may yet be hope. A redditor's theory based on other tweets:

Quote:PSA - Kim Dotcom's "you got mail" tweet to Wikileaks is saying that he sent Hillary's 33k emails to Wikileaks. His next tweet that he sent to Trey Gowdy instructs how federal official's can verify the SOON-TO-BE-RELEASED HILLARY DELETED EMAIL LEAKS. Checkmate

He also protects himself from getting extradited to the US for fear of his life. It's a perfect checkmate.
The emails will be released to the public

They will be damning

Gowdy has an avenue to verify they're real

It will be reported about

"Russia's doing it" narrative gets BTFO

The media will have to talk about X-keyscore and the unconstitutional NSA spying on everyone.

"Hillary & Co" go to prison

America can begin to heal

MAGA:

Doesn't work like that. These guys think too hard and do not know how the US works. We do not need a good lawyer like SP5 to explain why Gowdy cannot ask the NSA for her email. This is child-like reasoning. If they (wikileaks and this kim guy) wanted to help Gowdy or Chaffetz, they should have asked a lawyer or someone else knowledgeable on congress for advice.

They need to stay in their lane. Not behaving like journalists is why Julian is in the dog house at the embassy right now. They should have released everything they had, because no one goes to jail over political corruption the very next day over a leak. Nixon never even went to jail, nor did Bill for perjury. The FBI took years before they arrested that New Orleans politician for fraud.

These guys need to get a fucking grip on reality. This is not some fucking made for TV movie on the CW channel. This is not CSI where they can do a DNA test to prove something in 10 mins.

Unless Hillary has an email where she openly conspired to murder Seth Rich, she will not be arrested the next day. I would bet 1000 dollars on that, and I do not believe in gambling. Even then, it would be a fight because House and Senate Republicans would want to send the US Federal Marshals (which Congress can control to an extent) to pick her up and Obama will tell the Marshals to stand down. It would be ugly and unprecedented. No local law enforcement or state level would send a warrant for her arrest either. They are likely to stay out of it. DC Metro police will do what the White House tells them to do.

Obama would try to hide behind, "We will look into it" and if she wins the election, forget about it.

Anything outside of a serious felony like murder, will be subject to a 1-2 year inquiry and investigation, before someone is charged with anything.

That is why they had no business sitting on these leaks for as long as they have. It takes time. If she wins, they better fly to Russia and apply for political asylum. She is more crazy than Bush and Obama combined. She would send DEVGRU or CIA's SOG after Julian with the help of the SAS I bet. The UK doesn't have Big Mama EU to hold it back anymore. The other Wikileaks members will get round up as well.

Amateurs. The whole lot of them.

(10-27-2016 09:00 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Amateurs. The whole lot of them.

(10-27-2016 04:32 AM)weambulance Wrote:  ^

Relevant (Stefan Molyneux):

I really enjoyed the video and it makes a lot of sense. A must watch for those that are saying WTF in the light of all the damning evidence against Hillary.

To add, Congress (e.g. Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz especially) haven't been able to get shit done either except hold hearings and cross examine the culprits, only to have them plead the fifth and get off scot-free. Does this Committee of Congress have any real power? Seems like a waste of time and money.

(10-27-2016 06:33 AM)philosophical_recovery Wrote:  Starts at 27:20 in this video:

Quote:[–]Dirty_CopNV 1 point 3 minutes ago
3 lobbyists, one of which is related to Podesta, were hired to lobby the Clinton state department on behalf of an arms manufacturer.
All 3 lobbyists are also Clinton campaign donation bundlers.
The arms manufacturer received 3 massive contracts, much larger than previous contracts, for over 19 BILLION dollars.
None of the 3 lobbyists continued to work as lobbyists after Clinton left the state department.

Note: one of the lobbyists was HEATHER PODESTA

The fact she looks like the nagging annoying wife from American Beauty is not coincidental.

Am I reading this right?

Quote:Chelsea is married to George SOROS nephew.
[link to Bustle article.]
12:25 PM - 27 Oct 2016

Note: I didn't want to include a link because it points to pro-HRC Bustle site congratulating Chelsea on her pregnancy announcement.

(10-27-2016 03:36 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  Am I reading this right?

Quote:Chelsea is married to George SOROS nephew.
[link to Bustle article.]
12:25 PM - 27 Oct 2016

Note: I didn't want to include a link because it points to pro-HRC Bustle site congratulating Chelsea on her pregnancy announcement.

Does not appear to be true. Marc Mezvinsky's father is an Iowa born and raised politician, and the mother is also American. No sign of being related to Soros.

(10-27-2016 03:44 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 03:36 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  Am I reading this right?

Quote:Chelsea is married to George SOROS nephew.
[link to Bustle article.]
12:25 PM - 27 Oct 2016

Note: I didn't want to include a link because it points to pro-HRC Bustle site congratulating Chelsea on her pregnancy announcement.

Does not appear to be true. Marc Mezvinsky's father is an Iowa born and raised politician, and the mother is also American. No sign of being related to Soros.

That's what I thought too (his parents' background). Figured that person's tweet was meant to be a joke.