| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaaaand wow, today just got even more interesting, given the apparent links between Trump's campaign chairman and Russian interests.
The part that stuck out to me the most was this bit, from an explanation of why former CIA acting director Michael Morell decided to support Clinton (the whole of which is worth reading):
“Putin was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated. … Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States. In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaaaand wow, today just got even more interesting, given the apparent links between Trump's campaign chairman and Russian interests.
The part that stuck out to me the most was this bit, from an explanation of why former CIA acting director Michael Morell decided to support Clinton (the whole of which is worth reading):
“Putin was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated. … Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States. In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
I had heard the connection between Yanukovych and Manfort mentioned in passing on NPR, but didn't dare mention it here for fear of undermining my own scorn for conspiracy theorists. Thank you!
Wouldn't some of those homes be the same ones that were selling back in the 60s?That's what I based the California prices on. The house that I currently have there sold for a little over 500K.
The owners bought it in 1967 for $5000.
Same house, same yard, price is a major pain.
Thought I should add, it is in the SF area, which has had a meteor rise of prices in the intervening years.
I have other places in the US, such as the location I normally live at that have variations (and such extrapolated for the KS idea). Some I admit I have not looked up their purchase history nor what they are currently really worth (for example, one place I have in the SW US I got for around 135K, but the insurance companies are constantly trying to charge me for a 500K house, which aggravates me to no end, max it is worth, and that is absolute max, is 250K).
What California HAS done for me though, is I don't have to live in a McMansion to be happy. I can get something equivalent to CA for a LOT less other locations, and as I got used to the CA place for a while...I am happy without having to clean such a large place overall (perhaps that's the difference, the other people get maids, while I think that's a waste of money).
As an aside, sometimes insurance valuations are for "replacement cost", i.e., what it would cost to rebuild the house, which is often MUCH more than purchasing another home. Perhaps that is why you were seeing the $500k?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had heard the connection between Yanukovych and Manfort mentioned in passing on NPR, but didn't dare mention it here for fear of undermining my own scorn for conspiracy theorists. Thank you!
At this point the real conspiracy theorists are starting to look for the super-sekrit conspiracy hidden behind the seemingly obvious conspiracy;
Ivanka Trump & Wendy Deng vacationing together in Croatia... really a front for the Trump sleeper agent family to make contact with their Russian handlers! You heard it here first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna go ahead and directly link the study from the article above.
I've been meaning to ask - do we know how much she's earned in total from speeches?
Know how I know you didn't read my links on the subject?
I checked a few articles, but they didn't actually say *Coughs awkwardly*
The fact that Clinton often comes across as a corporate sort of candidate doesn't really help - for example, she seems to get paid an awful lot of money for short speeches whose content isn't disclosed.Actually compared to men in her position she really hasn't and when she has given speeches is a very diverse group of businesses.
Let me get home and I'll get you some articles about the subject.
Follow up:
Speaking fees as pie chart per industry
Clinton's speeking fees compared to other notworthy people
I grabbed these two because they address the point concisely and directly, with data. There's plenty of other similar takes but I felt these were the most apt for the discussion at hand.
Bumps, because it was four pages ago and pretty much every page has a dozen links.
I pretty much expect that corporate shills like Hillary (and all the Republican candidates, probably Chafee and O'Malley, too, though I didn't particularly follow them) get paid big bucks to come into corporate offices and give them verbal back rubs about how great they are for the economy, innovate technology, whatever, so, as I said, I always thought this issue was pretty weaksauce and the fact that Bernie couldn't come up with better material was further evidence that Bernie really wasn't any danger to the kleptocratic, plutocratic rulers of this country.
That being said, my initial thoughts when looking at the above articles:
First one: that is a very diverse group of financiers, capitalists and plutocrats that have lobbied Congress or the White House since 2008. Kind of reinforces Citizen Rednal's concern about her being a "corporate candidate."
Second one: I tried to click on the "See Below" link where it says she gave most of it to charity. For some reason, it didn't work on my computer, but when I got to the bottom I found the following passage:
"Clinton spends the money three ways: for her own expenses (which are high partly because she’s running for office), on her election campaign ($468,037), and on the Clinton Foundation, 89% of whose funding goes to charity (an excellent track record)."
I don't know if that's where the link would've lead, but I find it a bit disingenuous to say she gives most of it to charity when she's giving it to her own foundation.
The write up about the Clinton Foundation's charitable activities was interesting, too. I wonder how many of those speech buyers benefit from such charitable activities. Don't recall, for example, if Monsanto was on the list in the first article, but I do recall that they're a donor to the CF. I wonder who profits from "training African farmers to get access to seeds, etc."?
I, alas, have never looked too deeply into the muck-raking exposes of the Clinton Foundations activities, but I know that their dealings in Haiti, for example, have come under a lot of fire from a lot of different corners. Something about a lot of money going missing while Roger Clinton made bank? Don't recall, exactly.
Anyway, I don't expect that Hillary's particularly worse than any other power-hungry capitalist stooge, but hey, I don't layout the parameters of political debate in these elections. Alas.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.”
he had it at "umwitting". You can really mad lib the rest.
I come from the state that O'Malley governed, he isn't a corporate shill, just stupid. and sad.
Hmm... I should look into what type of charities Clinton donates to. Some charities are basically just helping the rich enjoy themselves more (fancy art shows), while others genuinely help those in need (feeding the homeless).
...
I should note that there's nothing wrong with donating to an organization that provides entertainment for your social class and such, but what people give money to does help you get a better understanding of who they are and what they care about.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Donald has now proposed that people wanting to immigrate to the US should have to pass an "ideological test" indicating, amongst other things, their support for American values such as religious freedom and gender equality.
I'm hoping some politico has the wit to ask why immigrants should have to prove they are more tolerant of American ideals than Donald Trump is.
Well, I like fire, so I lean towards the other side.
Article with non-GOP accusations and lots of links to poke through:
The shameful foundation of the Clintons' power
Also, can't say I've looked through all the links in this thread, but if we're going by the link provided by Citizen Spalding, the only speaker who commands more than her is Ben Bernanke. Don't understand how that translates into her fees are relatively low or below the market rate, but maybe I missed a link.
Mostly I was simply pointing out the information was out there and where the people Clinton has competed against this year stood.
Since she didn't compete against the entire republican field for the nomination I didn't include them, and embarrassingly enough I had forgotten about O'Malley.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been meaning to ask - do we know how much she's earned in total from speeches?
She (unlike trump) released her tax returns
Sometimes you need to remember the sausage metaphor. If you knew how they made sausage you might never touch the stuff ever again. Clinton is a politician. She has been a politician for a long time. I am reasonably confident you could dig up dirt on literally every politician given enough time and effort. And an astounding amount of effort has gone into discrediting Hilary. So sure, she looks dirty, I would find it hard to believe anyone who can actually get anything done in Washington wouldn't look dirty as mud just from being in that environment for that long.
Because that is the reality of the situation. Everyone focuses on the president, they forget the president, excepting the appointing of Supreme Court Judges, does exceedingly little domestically. They have to work with congress to do that. And despite resounding dissatisfaction with congress, incumbents stay where they are. So if our next president is going to accomplish literally anything, they need to actually know how to work out deals with other politicians.
Because even when everyone is being completely altruistic and not at all corrupt, our system of government is designed to force people to deal with each other. Every problem will affect different portions of the nation differently. If a wave of Potato crops get hit with a disease that needs research, the Senator from Idaho (if acting in complete altruism and representing his constituency) will be very concerned. A senator from California, might be more interested in water management of the Colorado River. And the Senator from New York actually wants to deal with issues in the Financial Sector. All of these things probably need to be dealt with for the collective health of our nations economy, but the priority is very different. Consequently a DEAL has to be made.
Hilary Clinton, though she has been aggressively demonized by the Right, can actually sit down and make deals. She has in the past, and can again. Trump cant even get his own party in congress to support him, let alone people with opposing view points.
Best case scenario for Trump getting elected is he does nothing for 4 years. That is literally the best case. He can't actually do any of the things he has said he will because all of them would require authorization and funds from congress. And NO ONE in congress is ready to do any of the stupid things that have come out of his mouth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that Trump considers his "brand" to be a significant part of his net worth, and its value is, basically, whatever he thinks it is... which is why his quotes about his worth fluctuate so much. XD
I'm pretty sure that Trump considers his "brand" to be a significant part of his net worth, and its value is, basically, whatever he thinks it is... which is why his quotes about his worth fluctuate so much. XD
Not many people can put a price tag on an ego...
He values it at 4 billion IIRC
No doubt an auditor would find him to be an entirely objective source! ;-)
|
How does someone give an accurate value of their complete net worth when most of their wealth comes from real-estate, where the values of their holdings vary from market to market and year to year.
As far as Trumps tax returns I think they might take up a large truck if they were all printed up. I file the smallest form and it take 3 pages
Trump has like 500 companies as each of his holdings is incorporated separately for legal liability reasons. I also think Trump most likely says his net worth is higher than it is, because he has a ego as large as the truck that hauls his tax returns and wants people to think he has more money than he actually has.
Mostly I was simply pointing out the information was out there and where the people Clinton has competed against this year stood.
Since she didn't compete against the entire republican field for the nomination I didn't include them, and embarrassingly enough I had forgotten about O'Malley.
Don't worry, I forgot O'Malley was involved too, and he was my states Governor.
I've been meaning to ask - do we know how much she's earned in total from speeches?
Unlike Mr. Trump, Clinton has followed the tradition of every Presidential candidate of the modern era, and has made full financial disclosure. We know how much she's made from EVERYTHING.
Drahliana Moonrunner, HRC has not released any of the Clinton Foundations tax returns its expenses or who has donated to it. HRC and Bill have released their personal tax returns not their foundations.
The Foundation's full discolsures are found on this site.
Keep in mind that the Foundation is not just an organisation that collects money, it actively runs projects as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think Trump most likely says his net worth is higher than it is, because he has a ego as large as the truck that hauls his tax returns and wants people to think he has more money than he actually has.
It's more than just ego.
His entire business plan is "The emperors new clothes fashion design". It dies when people see he has no clothes.
How does someone give an accurate value of their complete net worth when most of their wealth comes from real-estate, where the values of their holdings vary from market to market and year to year.
Typically, one uses reasonable estimates. Yes, it can be an issue, as a lot of people found to their dismay in the 2008 financial crisis, but somehow SImon Properties Group manages to deal with it in all of their filings with the SEC, and I can't imagine that it's that much harder for Trump.
As far as the presidential campaign goes, it's a non-issue. Income tax isn't related to one's wealth, but to one's income (like it says on the label).
As far as Trumps tax returns I think they might take up a large truck if they were all printed up. I file the smallest form and it take 3 pages
Trump has like 500 companies as each of his holdings is incorporated separately for legal liability reasons.
And that's not really a problem. I'm sure he files electronically (more accurately, that his accountant files electronically) because everyone does that nowadays, so he can just release the PDFs. Except that he won't,.... for some reason that may or may not be hiding something.
also think Trump most likely says his net worth is higher than it is, because he has a ego as large as the truck that hauls his tax returns and wants people to think he has more money than he actually has.
Of course. But, again, that won't show up on a tax return.... But what will show up are all of the shady tax dodges he uses to reduce his effective rate to 0.01%....
Trump's attack dog thinks that 9/11 wasn't a thing.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
Trump's attack dog thinks that 9/11 wasn't a thing.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.
...how hard did he get hit in the head with that building?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Drahliana Moonrunner, HRC has not released any of the Clinton Foundations tax returns its expenses or who has donated to it. HRC and Bill have released their personal tax returns not their foundations.
This is kind of a weird thing for you to claim, Lou Diamond, given that the Clinton Foundation is a registered 501(c)(3) organization, and as such its tax returns are a matter of public record. You literally could find them at the top of a Google search.
Were you simply mistaken about this? Or was this an attempt on your part to dishonestly smear Clinton?
I also think Trump most likely says his net worth is higher than it is, because he has a ego as large as the truck that hauls his tax returns and wants people to think he has more money than he actually has.
It's more than just ego.
His entire business plan is "The emperors new clothes fashion design". It dies when people see he has no clothes.
It's way more than just ego. Small businesses aren't the only people Trump's trying to stiff. He's involved with several tax disputes over properties. So he's trying to understate his wealth with them, while he overstates his wealth to the general public. Releasing his finances would force him to come clean with those municipalities.
For something not about Trump for a change, Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York who make 9/11 into his personal fiefdom, now is saying that the US did not suffer a successful attack by Radical Islam until Barrack Obama assumed the Presidency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit, Clinton is better then Trump, but she's still the devil that one is going to dance with.
We should have had Bernie.
Why do I bring this up, just read a story about a navy guy who took pictures while on a submarine. They had classified areas on them. After he saw them realized they had a classified area, so didn't send them to friends like he was going to. Didn't publish them, but kept them and didn't realize that was against the rules.
He had NO intent to have them sent off and no intent to do wrong. These are a FEW photos of the same area...NOT a bunch of emails specifically talking about multitudes of classified information.
He's threatened with jail time for a few years.
Clinton...get's off home free.
Gosh I hate how the elite are privileged and get away scot free with things that everyone else would go to jail for.
In the spirit of fairness, I'd like to call out a quote from the comments section of that article. According to the comment, Guiliani wasn't referencing the Presidency of Bush Jr., but Mike Pence's years on the Judiciary Committee working with the Patriot Act, going October 26, 2001 to November 5, 2009.
Of course, his words are fairly easy to misinterpret there, and I think the media's ready to believe any major Trump supporter is... not intelligent... at this point, but still. XD It's possible he just worded it poorly.
EDIT: Although, as thejeff pointed out, that's probably being overly generous as an interpretation... still, I don't want the nonsense coming from the Republican Party these days to automatically bias me against them and get me to stop thinking and trying to be fair.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do I bring this up, just read a story about a navy guy who took pictures while on a submarine. They had classified areas on them. After he saw them realized they had a classified area, so didn't send them to friends like he was going to. Didn't publish them, but kept them and didn't realize that was against the rules.
He had NO intent to have them sent off and no intent to do wrong. These are a FEW photos of the same area...NOT a bunch of emails specifically talking about multitudes of classified information.
He's threatened with jail time for a few years.
Clinton...get's off home free.
Gosh I hate how the elite are privileged and get away scot free with things that everyone else would go to jail for.
Gosh I hate how there is an alternate conservative universe where everything is radically different from our own reality.
Few details of the case from this reality;
1: He took photos of a classified propulsion system (not just random areas of the sub) he knew he wasn't supposed to
2: When he learned of the investigation he destroyed evidence
3: There is some evidence that he meant to sell the photos to foreign agencies
Completely different circumstances than the Clinton e-mails.