2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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...

[Diemen]

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.

[DaveC]

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.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

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.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by dazzledbylight

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-...P%20v%20NC.pdf

[Diemen]

Also, in more "you can't make this up" Trump news:

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by DaveC

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?

You have some kind of Ted Cruz deal where you could legally run for president in the U.S. ? Please ???

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

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-...87c#.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)

[trojanchick99]

I wonder if Donald is just a huge fan of Game of Thrones and wants to start using ravens to communicate.

Maybe he could consult with Mittens and bring back horses and bayonets while he's at it.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

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-...87c#.vr7sieatr )



(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)

What do you mean "what about it?"

What kind of entities can afford to pay such money for a speech to be made? By suggesting that her high speaker fee is "normal" it's almost making the claim that she or no other politician is influenced by their income. If you made $3 million in a year, you'd be concerned about where your sets of $200k are coming from.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

What do you mean "what about it?"

What kind of entities can afford to pay such money for a speech to be made?

Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medical Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.

By suggesting that her high speaker fee is "normal" it's almost making the claim that she or no other politician is influenced by their income. If you made $3 million in a year, you'd be concerned about where your sets of $200k are coming from.

No, if you make the majority of your income on paid speeches you're most likely not concerned where your sets of $200k are coming from. Just that you get sufficient of them.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by Popmartijn

No, if you make the majority of your income on paid speeches you're most likely not concerned where your sets of $200k are coming from. Just that you get sufficient of them.

You misinterpreted what I meant. By caring where they come from, I mean that it's not like there's an incredibly high demand for your services. It's not like if she chooses not to do one of those speeches, she has another lined up waiting for her the same day. You take as many as you're offered, because 200k is a significant portion of her income.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

I wonder if Donald is just a huge fan of Game of Thrones and wants to start using ravens to communicate.

Maybe he could consult with Mittens and bring back horses and bayonets while he's at it.

He's making W look smart, holy fuck


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

I think that W at least (usually) had the sense to know he wasn't the brightest bulb and therefore was a puppet to those more intelligent and evil than he was. Had he been born to a regular middle class family, he may not have been a bad guy - would have probably lived an unremarkable life of mediocre success at best in some small-ish town, hosting BBQs for the neighbours and never reading the newspaper.

Trump is worse because he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and has zero hubris. On top of that he has no filter between his brain and his mouth and a horribly thin skin.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by anitram

Trump is worse because he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room and has zero hubris. On top of that he has no filter between his brain and his mouth and a horribly thin skin.

Along those lines, at a rally today, he stated that he's "starting to agree with" people chanting lock her up. He said that before he'd been nice, but now the gloves are off.

This from a man who has already brought up her husband's failings and blamed her for them.

He also said that he has the best temperament out of anyone who has ever run because he has "a winning temperament... I've been winning all my life."

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Diemen

He also said that he has the best temperament out of anyone who has ever run because he has "a winning temperament... I've been winning all my life."

Him and Charlie Sheen.

And look where it got poor old Carlos Estevez.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Hewson

Him and Charlie Sheen.

And look where it got poor old Carlos Estevez.

Tiger Blood - Adonis DNA

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Adonis DNA

You have to take Donna out of the equation and slide the s to the end.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Diemen

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.

This post made me happy.