2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
no, she got paid by a corporation for a speech. by your logic since i work for a financial corporation they're bribing me and im in their pocket and should be disqualified from ever holding public office. you're so logically inconsistent it's fascinating that you think you're making any sense.
 
Hillary Clinton, the person women can trust on abortion.

Or maybe not since she decided to choose a VP who refuses to stop favoring the Hyde Amendment.

Kaine Contradicts Clinton Statements on Abortion Funding - NBC News

Kaine has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood.

Also, he may be personally for the amendment while not actively working against the Clinton campaign's goals. Kind of like he is personally pro-life but has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. You are allowed to hold religious beliefs but also believe in the separation of church and state and the value of not forcing your beliefs onto others in a secular society.

People are allowed shades of gray and nuance in their views.
 
Last edited:
In the 90's Republicans embraced this excessive cartoonish propaganda campaign. It gave birth to Limbaugh, then later Fox News, and the current right wing media landscape. Which has lead to this current celebration of ignorance; which has lead to Trump.

This propaganda machine centered around the Clintons; they attacked Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea. They spent so much time and effort attacking them that real news sources had to start speaking to their claims. But this cartoon media has been focused on the word Clinton for so long that it's just permeated our entire media landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There was like a list of seriously derogatory words to choose from to paint Democratic politians with. I'm not sure, but I think it was partly put together by Newt Gingrich. That's where most Republicans got their more nasty descriptions to use.

And then, of course, these descriptions were bandied back and forth between Republican politicians and the rising tier of right-wing radio talkers like Rush, NYC local Bob Grant, Michael Savage et all.
 
Last edited:
And thank you womanfish, dieman, moonlit, and popmartijn ( for the article about William Safire) for your posts.

I've heard some politicians say when asked that big Cirporate donators will get the donator in the door to be heard, but not necessarily that they will be influenced. There maybe a continium from some who are sometimes really influenced to those never influenced.
 
Last edited:
So, if Clinton had given a speech in the backyard of the Koch brothers and walked out of their with $1 million in her pocket, none of you would think it's an issue? :lol:
 
So, if Clinton had given a speech in the backyard of the Koch brothers and walked out of their with $1 million in her pocket, none of you would think it's an issue? :lol:


Hell I'd talk to the fuckers if they paid me a million dollars, but they probably wouldn't want to hear what I'd say.

If she continued a relationship with them I'd take issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Hell I'd talk to the fuckers if they paid me a million dollars, but they probably wouldn't want to hear what I'd say.

If she continued a relationship with them I'd take issue.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference


Keynote Speaker: BVS


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
exactly. being paid for a speech or two is nowhere close to being on the payroll.

and wtf is so spectacularly evil about speaking at a goldman sachs event anyways?
 
exactly. being paid for a speech or two is nowhere close to being on the payroll.

and wtf is so spectacularly evil about speaking at a goldman sachs event anyways?


I mean, not that I'm going to jump on that train because I don't really care... but look at how much she got paid...
 
I thought this was a very well put thought on progressives and voting your conscience:

If you believe that grassroots organizations and social movements are the most important vehicles for progressive change, then don’t think of voting as your personal endorsement of an individual candidate, as if the purpose of elections were to reflect our individual values; instead, think of your vote as your choice about which terrain you would prefer to ‘do battle’ within.

i.e. whose administration would make it easier to actually make progress towards your goals? For progressives, the choice seems pretty clear.
 
so what?

my company could give me 2 billion dollars and make me prime minister of canada tomorrow, it wouldn't make me a slave to their whims. it's silly to think otherwise.

every president for the rest of the existence of the united states of america is going to need to work with wall street one way or another or your economy is fucked in the extreme.

so what if they paid her. i hope they got their money's worth.
 
Because Goldman Sachs is inherently evil. By making such an appearance, you're saying that what they're doing is just fine.

The Great American Bubble Machine - Rolling Stone

"From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression"

this is where i stopped reading, because that's one of the most absurd things i've ever heard.

eta: goldman sachs is not inherently evil, for the love of god. they are simply at the moment the biggest and the richest - and of course they are diversified into damn near everything, that's how they became the biggest and the richest.
 
Last edited:
Federal Appeals Court over turned NC 's Voter ID law for " racially discriminatory intent".

Yes!!!

Hopefully NC Republicans can't successfully reset that before the Nov election!

The majority opinion is pretty unambiguous in what it makes of the law. It's quite a read:

Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “[t]his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.”

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16 4th Circuit NAACP v NC.pdf
 
so what?

my company could give me 2 billion dollars and make me prime minister of canada tomorrow, it wouldn't make me a slave to their whims. it's silly to think otherwise.

every president for the rest of the existence of the united states of america is going to need to work with wall street one way or another or your economy is fucked in the extreme.

so what if they paid her. i hope they got their money's worth.


Sure, if someone gives you 2 billion dollars and all of the power you could ask for, you don't need them anymore.

That's not exactly a good example.

Like I said, I'm not taking some stance on Clinton in specific over this. It was never something that truly bugged me. But, you're not making a very good argument.
 
so what?

my company could give me 2 billion dollars and make me prime minister of canada tomorrow, it wouldn't make me a slave to their whims. it's silly to think otherwise.

Immune to pay-for-play. Immune to deep-pocketed lobbyists. Really now? :hmm:

You have some kind of Ted Cruz deal where you could legally run for president in the U.S. ? Please ???
 
I mean, not that I'm going to jump on that train because I don't really care... but look at how much she got paid...

What about it then? The amount isn't anything out of the ordinary for someone like her.
To quote from the article I linked to earlier ( https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-hillary-a-plea-for-reason-308fce6d187c#.vr7sieatr )
Is $200k really that unusual? In fact “All American Speakers”, the agency that represents Clinton, currently represents 135 people whose MINIMUM speaking fee is $200,000. Some of the luminaries that get paid this much include: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Cara Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and “Larry the Cable Guy”. And no that last one is not a joke. And if you drop the speaking fee to $100k, the number of people they represent jumps to over 500. At $50,000 the number jumps to over 1,200. And All American Speakers are obviously not the only agency that represents speakers. So there are in fact thousands of people getting paid this kind of money to give a speech.
(BTW, John Kasich is in the $20K-$30K range. Mike Pence's fee is not disclosed, you'll have to contact that agency for it)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom