Sanders beats Clinton embarassingly, but did you know it?

[untermensche]

It could be argued that Hillary is more dangerous since she is more hawkish than Trump.

How hawkish is Trump?

 

[ksen]

It could be argued that Hillary is more dangerous since she is more hawkish than Trump.

How hawkish is Trump?

From what I understand he is hawkish against ISIS but that's about it. Whereas Hillary hasn't met a regime yet she wouldn't mind changing not to mention her meddling in Latin American countries resulting in legitimized coups and dead opposition members, i.e. Honduras.

 

[untermensche]

How hawkish is Trump?

From what I understand he is hawkish against ISIS but that's about it. Whereas Hillary hasn't met a regime yet she wouldn't mind changing not to mention her meddling in Latin American countries resulting in legitimized coups and dead opposition members, i.e. Honduras.

But what happens after the Joint Chiefs speak to Trump?

How hawkish is he?

 

[ZiprHead]

He side stepped the question of whether he would use tactical nukes against isis.

 

[credoconsolans]

It was the three-state sweep the Vermont senator had been waiting for -- and his margins of victory in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii were impressive, with every victory by at least 40 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/polit...clinton-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html

This weekend was a 3 state sweep by Sanders.

In Alaska Clinton only got 18%, in Hawaii Clinton only got 30% and in Washington she only got 27%.

Yeah, I heard of it, but the states are pretty minor.

I'm still bummed that the media pays WAY too much attention to Trump.

He's top of the polls - he's interviewed.
He's no longer front runner - he's interviewed.
He wins decisively - he's interviewed.
He loses decisively - he's interviewed.

After Sanders won in Nevada, I expected an interview with him to be at the top of the news hour. Nope. It was Trump.

Kasich won big in Ohio, taking away a sure thing nom from Trump and I expected to see him be interviewed. Nope. It was Trump.

 

[arkirk]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/polit...clinton-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html

This weekend was a 3 state sweep by Sanders.

In Alaska Clinton only got 18%, in Hawaii Clinton only got 30% and in Washington she only got 27%.

Yeah, I heard of it, but the states are pretty minor.

I'm still bummed that the media pays WAY too much attention to Trump.

He's top of the polls - he's interviewed.
He's no longer front runner - he's interviewed.
He wins decisively - he's interviewed.
He loses decisively - he's interviewed.

After Sanders won in Nevada, I expected an interview with him to be at the top of the news hour. Nope. It was Trump.

Kasich won big in Ohio, taking away a sure thing nom from Trump and I expected to see him be interviewed. Nope. It was Trump.

Since I was a boy, people in my family have always told me it is a cinch to pick who to vote for. Look at the L.A. Times recommendation and then vote for the other guy. Big media outfits are all either rich of their own devices or in need of the finances of rich people. The interests of the billionaires are not the interests of ordinary working people. If you think they are....let me know when I can sell you a bridge. So if they are in the business of recommending, when they report the news, you really think they will give fair assessments of the qualities of the candidates when they have a horse in the race? Sanders has amassed about as much money as Clinton ($27 the average donation)...Do you know that! Clinton does high end fund raisers and YOU are not welcome inside...with your paltry $27. So who do you think the media will be crowing about....the rich bitches in the race....just like they are doing. Odd huh?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/polit...clinton-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html

This weekend was a 3 state sweep by Sanders.

In Alaska Clinton only got 18%, in Hawaii Clinton only got 30% and in Washington she only got 27%.

Yeah, I heard of it, but the states are pretty minor.

I'm still bummed that the media pays WAY too much attention to Trump.

He's top of the polls - he's interviewed.
He's no longer front runner - he's interviewed.
He wins decisively - he's interviewed.
He loses decisively - he's interviewed.

After Sanders won in Nevada, I expected an interview with him to be at the top of the news hour. Nope. It was Trump.

Kasich won big in Ohio, taking away a sure thing nom from Trump and I expected to see him be interviewed. Nope. It was Trump.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...-sanders-barely-gets-seventy-per-cent-of-vote

 

[RavenSky]

It was the three-state sweep the Vermont senator had been waiting for -- and his margins of victory in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii were impressive, with every victory by at least 40 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/28/polit...clinton-donald-trump-2016-election/index.html

This weekend was a 3 state sweep by Sanders.

In Alaska Clinton only got 18%, in Hawaii Clinton only got 30% and in Washington she only got 27%.

yes... but I watch Chris and Rachel