2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ubik said:
"The Cardiovascular Research Foundation, a fundraising group for cutting-edge heart medicine, paid Clinton $275,000 for a speech in Washington in September 2014."

Presumably this means she's going to be corruptly funding heart-disease research as well if she wins. What a bitch.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, a university paid her 300+ for a speech and came under quite a bit of heat as well.

Between 2013-2015, she earned 21 millions in the speaking circuit, 1.8 millions came from banks or Wall Street entities. Somehow, the other 19 millions were never questioned. Not interesting enough for talking points, I guess.
 
Kaos said:
Not surprised you've ignored the likes of Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, GE and Verizon. Presumably you trust the intentions of those corps.
Click to expand...
I'm pointing out the flaw in the reasoning that just because someone's paid for her to make a speech makes her beholden. I'm guessing there are plenty of others among the 82 that are similarly innocuous.
 
Red Dreams said:
talk about missing the point.

..and your 'thoughts'....


...yeah I'm gutted.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Trump is ideologically in the center (or was it on the left) who isn't a bigot, a fascist, a racist and a liar. And he is the best thing that has happened to American politics since George Bush.
 
Red Dreams said:
if yolu tried to understand what I have posted instead of responding with hate, you would get the point.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to understand there.

Trump is - by a significant distance - the worst possible candidate for the presidency and the worst thing it has happened to American politics. In a time when racism was going to get eliminated, he suddenly made it mainstream again.

In addition he has no policies at all or solutions on how things work (unless you think that 'I'll talk with Bill Gates to see how to do that is a solution'). Combined with his business history, he doesn't have any pro towards him.

Luckily for US (and the rest of the world), he has no chance of actually winning. Unfortunately though, he has opened the Pandora Box of hate. Or well, made it stronger.
 
Red Dreams said:
it's called cherry picking
Click to expand...

That's what I was alluding at.

Ubik said:
I'm pointing out the flaw in the reasoning that just because someone's paid for her to make a speech makes her beholden. I'm guessing there are plenty of others among the 82 that are similarly innocuous.
Click to expand...

If you're going to pay $250,000 for a speech, it either has to be a pretty damn amazing, life-changing speech, or you're wanting something in return. Yes, granted some of those 82 may have genuinely benevolent or possibly altruistic intentions and simply want the exposure and publicity, but at looking at the bulk of the other names I'm going to stick my neck out and assume they don't fall into that category. Not releasing the transcripts does her no favours either.
 
Revan said:
There is nothing to understand there.

Trump is - by a significant distance - the worst possible candidate for the presidency and the worst thing it has happened to American politics. In a time when racism was going to get eliminated, he suddenly made it mainstream again.

In addition he has no policies at all or solutions on how things work (unless you think that 'I'll talk with Bill Gates to see how to do that is a solution'). Combined with his business history, he doesn't have any pro towards him.

Luckily for US (and the rest of the world), he has no chance of actually winning. Unfortunately though, he has opened the Pandora Box of hate. Or well, made it stronger.
Click to expand...

the reasonable candidate I refer to is not Trump. He will hopefully come along in the next cycle now that Trump has shattered the lies of that party. We do need a balance...though at one time I would have hoped the demise of the GOP would be great. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Raoul said:
What is it about Republican policy that you like ?
Click to expand...
In first place I'm European with bad taste of the left wing parties in Portugal, they completely destroyed the country after 1974 and even more recently the socialist party bankrupted Portugal. I believe in smaller governments, less involvement in social issues (should be the states to foot the bill), then I'm against any labor trade when we just move factories to countries with cheap labor and low/no environment laws (both parties guilty here), I'm against raising taxes because some percentage of the population don't want to work but they live on welfare, wars and giving money to countries like Israel and Egypt. My ideas are more related with Rand Paul then anybody else.
 
Kaos said:
That's what I was alluding at.



If you're going to pay $250,000 for a speech, it either has to be a pretty damn amazing, life-changing speech, or you're wanting something in return. Yes, granted some of those 82 may have genuinely benevolent or possibly altruistic intentions and simply want the exposure and publicity, but at looking at the bulk of the other names I'm going to stick my neck out and assume they don't fall into that category. Not releasing the transcripts does her no favours either.
Click to expand...
The fact she does not do so, says she will heavily contradict her message of standing up to big banks and such.
 
barros said:
In first place I'm European with bad taste of the left wing parties in Portugal, they completely destroyed the country after 1974 and even more recently the socialist party bankrupted Portugal. I believe in smaller governments, less involvement in social issues (should be the states to foot the bill), then I'm against any labor trade when we just move factories to countries with cheap labor and low/no environment laws (both parties guilty here), I'm against raising taxes because some percentage of the population don't want to work but they live on welfare, wars and giving money to countries like Israel and Egypt. My ideas are more related with Rand Paul then anybody else.
Click to expand...

So you're essentially a libertarian. Hate to say it, but I don't think the GOP is your party.
 
Kaos said:
If you're going to pay $250,000 for a speech, it either has to be a pretty damn amazing, life-changing speech, or you're wanting something in return.
Click to expand...

Nope.

I give random people on the street a few bucks frequently, because I can spare it and it makes me feel good.

$250k is literally pocket change for these big corporations. The average monthly income of a Vietnamese worker is about $200. My father (who is a cvnt, btw) spunked $200,000 a few years back on a local pageant, and I assure you he didn't get any ass out of that.

It's funny that people make a lot of assumption about rich folks or big corps without actually knowing about how they work.
 
Kaos said:
That's what I was alluding at.



If you're going to pay $250,000 for a speech, it either has to be a pretty damn amazing, life-changing speech, or you're wanting something in return. Yes, granted some of those 82 may have genuinely benevolent or possibly altruistic intentions and simply want the exposure and publicity, but at looking at the bulk of the other names I'm going to assume they going to stick my neck out and assume they don't fall into that category. Not releasing the transcripts does her no favours either.
Click to expand...
To me, it kind of blows the whole argument out of the water. If health charities are able to afford it, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, then I'm pretty sure the likes of Goldman see it as a drop in the ocean.
 
Raoul said:
The irony of this year is that Russ Feingold will probably come back to the Senate, but John McCain may get beaten.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike McCain's warmogering attitude, I respect the man. In 2008 while Hillary happily played up to the anti-Muslim fears calling into question Obama's faith McCain refused to do that even when he knew he was losing. In fact he called Obama a decent family man. And I will say again, if he had won in 2000, this country would have made a correct turn, instead of the disaterous one it did with Bush.
 
Revan said:
Fascism is far right, not center.

Trump by his speeches is a bigot fascist. If he is saying that just to win votes then it would make him a liar, and apparently you hate liars.

You are really an interesting case. A case study could be made.
Click to expand...
And communism is far left, I don't see any candidate that goes too much to the left or to the right.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Nope.

I give random people on the street a few bucks frequently, because I can spare it and it makes me feel good.

$250k is literally pocket change for these big corporations. The average monthly income of a Vietnamese worker is about $200. My father (who is a cvnt, btw) spunked $200,000 a few years back on a local pageant, and I assure you he didn't get any ass out of that.

It's funny that people make a lot of assumption about rich folks or big corps without actually knowing about how they work.
Click to expand...

:lol: So the likes of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley throw money at her because of the feel good factor?

Chump change or not, ask yourself why it is they're specifically paying her. I'm pretty sure you can bring in any expert within any domain of your choosing that'll charge an hourly rate the fraction of that.
 
Ubik said:
To me, it kind of blows the whole argument out of the water. If health charities are able to afford it, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, then I'm pretty sure the likes of Goldman see it as a drop in the ocean.
Click to expand...

The issue is not whether they can afford it or not (which certainly all of them can), but rather why they're keen to single her out for the speeches.
 
barros said:
In first place I'm European with bad taste of the left wing parties in Portugal, they completely destroyed the country after 1974 and even more recently the socialist party bankrupted Portugal. I believe in smaller governments, less involvement in social issues (should be the states to foot the bill), then I'm against any labor trade when we just move factories to countries with cheap labor and low/no environment laws (both parties guilty here), I'm against raising taxes because some percentage of the population don't want to work but they live on welfare, wars and giving money to countries like Israel and Egypt. My ideas are more related with Rand Paul then anybody else.
Click to expand...
Strange how you haven't been with bad taste during the Bush's presidency then. Pretty sure that the last two Democrat presidents have been far better when it comes to economy than the last two Republican presidents.

The points against war, small government and giving money to Israel/Egypt are fair points. But also, pretty sure that Republican presidents are more likely to go to war than the Democrat ones.
 
Kaos said:
:lol: So the likes of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley throw money at her because of the feel good factor?

Chump change or not, ask yourself why it is they're specifically paying her. I'm pretty sure you can bring in any expert within any domain of your choosing that'll charge an hourly rate the fraction of that.
Click to expand...

Because it makes them looks good? More prestigious, bigger lure for potential hire, giving current employees the satisfaction of working in a powerful workplace that attracts world-famous speakers?

I'm not naive enough to think they are not driven by profits, but I'm literally reared in that environment. Not everything they do is to accomplish nefarious purposes.
 
Red Dreams said:
the reasonable candidate I refer to is not Trump. He will hopefully come along in the next cycle now that Trump has shattered the lies of that party. We do need a balance...though at one time I would have hoped the demise of the GOP would be great. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ideally Republicans should move from far right to center, and Democrats should move from left center to left. And both parties should be less in the pockets of big enterprises.

But Trump is not the solution. Republicans were on self destruction even before him. He is acting just as a catalist to that.
 
Red Dreams said:
it may be small change to these banks....sure they paid billions in fines so their top execs could stay out of prison. But it wont be small change to her.
Click to expand...

Which is the key point.

If they've buttered up Hilary, soon-to-be President, Clinton, then they can expect a few good favours their way.
 
barros said:
And communism is far left, I don't see any candidate that goes too much to the left or to the right.
Click to expand...
Of course communist is too left. But no-one on the left wing US is a communist.

Sanders policies are less left-wingish then Merkel's in Germany, who is a right wing politician. Hillary would have been regarded as one of the most right wing politicians in Europe.

On the other side, Republicans have gone too far to the right. Even the likes of Bush and Reagan are liberal compared to Trump, Cruz or even Rubio.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Because it makes them looks good? More prestigious, bigger lure for potential hire, giving current employees the satisfaction of working in a powerful workplace that attracts world-famous speakers?

I'm not naive enough to think they are not driven by profits, but I'm literally reared in that environment. Not everything they do is to accomplish nefarious purposes.
Click to expand...

And to bolster their PR, they've chosen to hire a polarising, largely unpopular political candidate, currently facing an FBI indictment?

I'm not suggesting all corporations are comical pantomime villains, but as someone reared in the corporate life you'd know that the number one priority is profit at all costs, regardless of moral implications. They know that by buttering up the likely future President they can receive a lot of favourable executive leeway, even if its at odds with the majority of ordinary people.
 
Revan said:
Yeah, ideally Republicans should move from far right to center, and Democrats should move from left center to left. And both parties should be less in the pockets of big enterprises.

But Trump is not the solution. Republicans were on self destruction even before him. He is acting just as a catalist to that.
Click to expand...

he indeed is acting the catalyst. He is tearing off the lies...
Bush kepts us safe...:lol: yeah sure he did

and he led us into a disasterous war that opened the can of worms.

He also is mocking the power of special interests.

That is good. We don't want that. No one wants that. How do we move to a place where these Super Rich have no power over ordinary lives?

What Trump is doing is good...in the long run.

Will there be risk? of course. Everything in life has risks.

But we cannot throw up our hands and say we cannot do anything.
 
Sanders is more of a New Dealer than a socialist IMO.

The US establishment just seems to label anyone left of the Clintons as Marxists.

Ironically the UK conservative party would be considered too left wing for the States.
 
Trump is talking less like a Tea Party nut and more like a liberal-oriented north eastern Republican: The Today Show interview is a great case in point.....



Interventionism (4:15)

LGBT/NC Bathroom Law (8:20)

Abortion (9:52)

Wall Street Banks (11:52)

Raising Taxes on the Wealthy (13:49)
 
Red Dreams said:
he calls himself a Social Democrat or summat.

just labels. like you say..he would be pretty moderate in Europe.
Click to expand...

In Europe his policies wouldn't be considered radical in the slightest. Countries here have been consistently electing governments with similar platforms without a single eyebrow raised. And surprisingly no Lenin statues have popped up anywhere :)
 
Kaos said:
In Europe his policies wouldn't be considered radical in the slightest. Countries here have been consistently electing governments with similar platforms without a single eyebrow raised. And surprisingly no Lenin statues have popped up anywhere :)
Click to expand...

We have been surrendering power to a few for decades without realising that here. Except here they call themselves 'job creators' :smirk:
 
Kaos said:
And to bolster their PR, they've chosen to hire a polarising, largely unpopular political candidate, currently facing an FBI indictment?

I'm not suggesting all corporations are comical pantomime villains, but as someone reared in the corporate life you'd know that the number one priority is profit at all costs, regardless of moral implications. They know that by buttering up the likely future President they can receive a lot of favourable executive leeway, even if its at odds with the majority of ordinary people.
Click to expand...
You've got the wrong timeline there - Clinton during her time at and after she left the state department was very popular. Regularly scored over +30 with Gallup. She's only been in negative figures since May last year. And she was doing the speeches before any of the email stuff came up.

Essentially, they hired one of the most famous women in the world, someone who'd been in the White House for eight years as First Lady, went head to head with the current President in 08, was in the situation room when Bin Laden was killed, was Secretary of State during the Arab Spring, and was still the first woman with a genuine change of becoming the first President of the US. To suggest that they'd only want her to speak in order to bribe her just in case she did get to the Oval Office is pushing it a little.
 
Kaos said:
And to bolster their PR, they've chosen to hire a polarising, largely unpopular political candidate, currently facing an FBI indictment?

I'm not suggesting all corporations are comical pantomime villains, but as someone reared in the corporate life you'd know that the number one priority is profit at all costs, regardless of moral implications. They know that by buttering up the likely future President they can receive a lot of favourable executive leeway, even if its at odds with the majority of ordinary people.
Click to expand...

At the time of those speeches, she had just finished her Sec State tenure with near- lifetime high public approval rating, was the most admired woman in the world like ten years running, so yeah, sounds quite attractive to me.

Goldman Sachs invited Yao Ming to speak this year. Let that sink in. For someone of Hillary Clinton's stature, 225k is actually on the low end of the pay. By all means, rail against the obscene gulf of wealth between the haves and have-nots, but to think simply that that amount can sway her is actually doing her a disservice even if you are going by the notion that the woman is a greedy feck, she's worth 150m ffs.

From my experience, politicians do absolutely look more favorable on corporations who wine and dine them, that's not up for debate. However, the extent to which they choose to bestow their favors varied wildly between individuals, circumstances and political blowback (yes, there's such a thing in a one-party communist country). No one is going to argue that the Clintons aren't cozy with big businesses, but unlike the Republicans, their coziness very rarely compromise the wellbeing of the common man, the economic prosperity under Bill and even the recovery post-09 by Obama is proof of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.