I'm sure it's the same as people not voting for the candidate because he/she is black (yellow, brown, etc) and disregard the platform/policies that the candidate represents because of some characteristic like skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc a person is.
I'm just wondering, don't these college kids know how to answer a question with thought and reasoning.
I'm not even going to bother watching the video, but I assume it's just some kids that weren't even old enough to vote in the last presidential election, plus they aren't expecting to be pasted as examples all over the conservative echochamber.
One problem with Hillary is that everything she does seems so contrived. Yes, all political campaigns are staged, but for some reason everything she does seems like bullshit.
I don't really know how to explain it. It is like she is an awful actor just reading her lines. Nothing seems genuine, or spontaneous.
I am not a big Bill Clinton fan, but Bill can just walk into any room and seem comfortable with any group of people. Hillary not so much.
The closest thing she did to being genuine in 2008 was cry after New Hampshire. And you could tell that campaign saw the reaction and then started to do all these contrived humanizing things, and in turn made them seem more contrived.
Politicking is kinda like professional wrestling. Yeah, we all know it is fake, but if you perform well we can get behind you and appreciate the performance art and become invested in that wrestler.
If she wants to win this year she needs to streamline her campaign and have as few advisers as possible, because last time they were frantically looking for anything that got traction and had too many people telling her different things, and they looked disorganized and disingenuous.
That is a funny dynamic between her and Bill.
I actually read that in person, Hillary is actually much more down to earth and approachable than her husband.
G5's topic of the day is a made up topic by Fox News and he wants to pass it off as something real. We all already know that welfare fraud exists, but it's at the same or less in terms of percentage of fraud committed under any kind of program like this, for example the military or park service, construction sites, whatever.
You just have to pick on the poor because it's easy and reinforces your worldview that you worked hard and other people didn't, so I should get to decide things, reinforced by racial stereotypes and plain lack of empathy, and common greed.
In Batman v Superman Superman is no lackey of the government; if anything many of the world's governments distrust the guy. But it is Superman who goes to Gotham and starts the confrontation... at the behest of Lex Luthor. And unlike The Dark Knight Returns, Superman comes out swinging, pulverizing the Batmobile with one punch. Why would Superman do Lex Luthor's bidding? What is Lex hoping to accomplish? That would be spoiling. But know that when the fight is over, Batman will be able to point to Superman and say, "He started it!"
This was done for federal employees for many years. If I retired from the Navy, I would be able to draw my retirement pension from the Navy, but when I got old enough to draw SS, the amount would be the difference between my Navy pension and what SS said I should receive. The problem was my Navy pension was already more than what my SS draw would be, therefore, under the old law, I would not get any SS.
Hypothetical example: My eligible SS draw at age 65 is $2K per month. My military pension is $1500 per month. Therefore SS would only pay me the difference ($500).
I'm not sure when that changed, but it was within the last 20 years if I'm not mistaken.