Anyway, as I said above, it doesn't make much difference to me if it's a question of personal venality or realpolitik. Personally, I think it's more about networking, access-peddling and influencing policy ("She's great at making deals!" I believe is one of the constant refrains of her supporters).*Nothing out of line with that, right? Must take some squinting to see something wrong in all that mess. As I had occasion to mention regarding the Wall Street speeches, I don't think she's any more monstrous than your average power-hungry capitalist stooge, just more successful. And, I guess, if you're a supporter of international capitalism, as most of you are, or supporters of American imperialism, no matter how begruding or reluctantly, as most of you are, you probably don't see anything wrong with hobnobbing with union-busters and facilitating deals between the captains of western capitalism and blood-soaked feudal monarchies and dictatorships.
I mean, even Carter did it, right? That's the way the system works.
And then Dicey wonders why I don't vote.
----
*Although I have seen articles about the Foundation taking care of Clinton friends and...
I do support international capitalism. Not unregulated and unrestricted, but increased trade has reduced wars between strong trading partners. Until the Ukraine/Russia conflict, no two countries with a McDonald's had ever gone to war with each other. This isn't to say that McDonald's is specifically powerful or important, but that as a benchmark, it tends to show when a country enters the global market and begins to access a few of the goods and services available to Western middle-class markets.
I don't think that capitalism is good for all things, roads, health care, utilities, public safety, education are just a few examples of things that need to be provided to everyone and so can't be subject to the whims of capitalism. I even want to include journalism, but I don't think having the government control news outlets is the solution to our woes in that area.
I think war is the worst thing that can happen to the working class of the world. The rich don't get sent to die in wars, the poor and working class do. Now, capitalism when supported by imperialism does cause conflict, but that's more an effect of imperialism.
As stated many pages ago, I support increased global trade. It needs to be structured better to protect workers and prevent exploitation, but it's still better than isolationism and protectionism.
As for imperialism, that's going to exist, regardless of who is in office as long as the US is a super power. I don't see this one issue as a reason to not participate in the system though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But i don't want to have to learn to speak lizard.
I spit when i make the TSSSS sound.
That's a common rookie mistake.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to molting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That speech, though.
That...was pretty scathing. Hopefully the reasonable undecideds (assuming such people exist) were watching it.
For the true believers, however, however, it be easily dismissed as "liberal media" bias, or as more of "crooked Hillary's" lies. Assuming it is read/heard in the first place. Which it won't be.
The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...When in doubt, loudly accuse somebody else of what you, yourself, are doing?
The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."Even when he's done it further south, it's been to rural white audiences. It's pretty clear it's not really minority outreach, it's "convince his not-so-racist wavering supporters that he's trying" outreach.
Of course, his first attempt on this minority outreach was talking about solving inner city problems with tougher policing.
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.
Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Goes through more of the news* ...Oh dear. Okay, so this is something that might actually come up on the campaign trail, if only as a talking point for the candidates.
Anyway, in the last week or so, there's been a lot of controversy over the massive price hikes the EpiPen (an anti-allergy medicine injector) has been seeing. The company that owns it (Mylan) has, among other things, cited the 'cost of development' for the product as a justification for the massive hikes of a really old product.
Except, apparently, its development was taxpayer funded, via a contract with the Department of Defense. And not by them, either - it's been around for decades, and they just acquired the patents for it. I think Mylan is being asked to testify before Congress... I wonder if that's gonna get brought up. o_O
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!
I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.
Also, I love how Trump's immigration pivot just crapped on Ann Coulter's new book promotion. I'm betting a cocktail made from Coulter's tears will be as satisfying (but admittedly horrible tasting) as one made from Scalia's.
And he did the inverse when Brexit occurred and he gave a speech congratulating the British on taking their country back.
In Scotland.
To a Scottish audience.
Egads. Even a ignorant 'Murican such as myself knows better than that!
So in case someone wonders what parts of Gary Johnson's campaign I don't like:
1. The libertarian platform.
2. Ron Nelson's long time partnership with Gary Johnson and all the dirt that's attached to them both through that.
3. RON PAUL! (well only in that it's RON PAUL, and no direct connection)
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.
Also, I love how Trump's immigration pivot just crapped on Ann Coulter's new book promotion. I'm betting a cocktail made from Coulter's tears will be as satisfying (but admittedly horrible tasting) as one made from Scalia's.
I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?
Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)
I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?
Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)
Yeah, I saw it, and thought it was great. But Trump would (thankfully) never do it. It boggles me; I can't understand how Trump's ego could be so very massive and also be so very fragile.
The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."
Giving any campaign speeches in New Hampshire AT ALL makes no sense. It's almost certainly going to go democrat and is only worth 4 electoral college votes. There are far more swing vote states or states only weakly leaning Republican that he should be focusing in on.
And I as I like to add everytime I mention him, that's "former Republican governor Gary Johnson."So in case someone wonders what parts of Gary Johnson's campaign I don't like:
1. The libertarian platform.
2. Ron Nelson's long time partnership with Gary Johnson and all the dirt that's attached to them both through that.
3. RON PAUL! (well only in that it's RON PAUL, and no direct connection)
I have something like that for Ted Cruz, "who managed to get the plot to Green Eggs and Ham wrong."
|
Yeah, I saw it, and thought it was great. But Trump would (thankfully) never do it. It boggles me; I can't understand how Trump's ego could be so very massive and also be so very fragile.I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?
Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)
I read that book in the third grade. I'd forgotten all about it until Last Week brought it up.
The thing is (I haven't read more than the Cox News abbreviated version, forgive me any errors) Trump gave a minority outreach speech today in New Hampshire. I was all, "Well, that's the state you want to give it in, not, y'know, Arizona or any other state even slightly south of New-Frakkin-Hampshire."Giving any campaign speeches in New Hampshire AT ALL makes no sense. It's almost certainly going to go democrat and is only worth 4 electoral college votes. There are far more swing vote states or states only weakly leaning Republican that he should be focusing in on.
I wouldn't underestimate Trump's campaign's incompetence. Heck, they almost missed getting on the ballot in Minnesota.
Not worth bringing the conversation back to this, but I wrote it, and forgot to hit post, so here it is:
Again, you are being manipulated, and are contributing to a culture of disinformation.
Please stop. You know better.
Perhaps I am being misinformed, I'll be the first to admit that I have trouble understanding tax form stuff. I also don't know much about The Daily Kos, but was under the impression that it was generally pro-democrat. As for The Federalist, or The Hedge, I know very little about them. I know the NY Post is often B*$@!@*&, so I didn't link that. I will attempt to find better sources in the future.
I thought there was more to the Bill Allison, Sunlight Foundation stuff, but I'm unable to find anything of substance - perhaps it's BS.
The "other expenses" quote, I did not check, and indeed that sounds like BS to me. I apologize for posting something like that. I skimmed the IRS documents, but they are well over 50 pages each, and my eyes glazed over after awhile. I fully concede that one could get the wrong impression from the 15% number, as it implies that it is the only thing they do, rather then the actual money they give.
But I did crack open one of the links to a 2012 IRS form - and compared the total revenue $54 million (line 12) with "Salaries, other compensation, employee benefits", $18 million (line 15). It seems like roughly 4 million of the salaries is for management, general and fundraising expenses, not program expenses.
Note: It looks like they have 275 staff, who would make avg $50,000 each (14 mil/275), about 10 people making over 100K, as well as 400 volunteers.) According to one of Scott's links, "A lot of what the foundation does is have its employees help facilitate partnerships."
The travel numbers I checked for 2012, were 4.5 million (Page 10 line 17), with about 3.2 million being for program expenses, the rest being for management, general and fundraising expenses.
I would also point out that over a million dollars of program expenses went to "advertising and promotion".
So it looks like salaries and travel for 2012 were roughly 40% of total revenue, but much of it was in the program expenses column. I'm highly skeptical of the 88% of their income helping people, statistic but then "facilitating partnerships" is open to interpretation. I did not find anything on the tax return that proves the slushfund assertion, so I will gladly concede that was not supported. I might have my issues with Hillary, but I give her enough credit to not submit tax returns that show wrongdoing.
Honestly, all of this is missing the real point. Even if the Foundation is 100% honest and perfect, it is still a promotional tool for the Clinton brand, the same way the Ronald McDonald Foundation is a promotional tool for the McDonald's brand. A brand is really what a national politician is. People who donate large amounts of money are benefiting the Clinton's brand and their political aspirations - there is no disputing that. Just like donors to the Clinton's political funds, they often get facetime with the Clinton's and the obvious influence that comes when you do things that benefit a candidate.
There is a reason foreign entities are unable to donate to political funds, and there is a reason that judges recluse themselves when making decisions that could have even the appearance of impartiality. There is a reason Clinton singed an ethics agreement between the Foundation and the Obama administration, which she did not even prpperly comply with. There is a reason the Clinton foundation will no longer be accepting donations from corporations or foreign interests. These changes should have been made years ago, BEFORE the Clinton's benefited from millions and millions of special interest dollars. Now the Clinton's are saying thanks for all the benefits, we'll remember who put us here, but we're going clean. Too little, too late.
Quick note: I don't think the Clinton Foundation is the worst form of fundraising, actually I think it is among the least offensive models. If candidates were rewarded for raising money for good causes, the way Lance Armstrong used doping to raise money for Livestrong, it is better then the current SuperPAC dark money mess. Unfortunately, the Clinton's are doing all that crap as well, so the Clinton Foundation is just the cherry on the influence peddling sundae.
Not worth bringing the conversation back to this, but I wrote it, and forgot to hit post, so here it is:
Perhaps I am being misinformed, I'll be the first to admit that I have trouble understanding tax form stuff. I also don't know much about The Daily Kos, but was under the impression that it was generally pro-democrat. As for The Federalist, or The Hedge, I know very little about them. I know the NY Post is often B%#~!&$#, so I didn't link that. I will attempt to find better sources in the future.The Kos is indeed quite pro-democrat, but that particular diary was from April, in the middle of the primary wars. From a fervent Bernie supporter.
Beyond that, it's interesting that running a charity is seen as disqualifying, while running a business, particularly a big business with international deals and connections is seen as a plus.
Depends on where the money comes from and where it goes...
Also, I hope you are not implying that Clinton does not also have ties to several businesses...
EDIT: Interesting about the Daily Kos. I guess I'm surprised they had stuff that was so in-fighty on there, but I should know better then to be surprised by anything this election.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I saw it, and thought it was great. But Trump would (thankfully) never do it. It boggles me; I can't understand how Trump's ego could be so very massive and also be so very fragile.I don't think Trump is campaigning for PotUS anymore. I think he has mostly written that off, and has full-time switched to campaigning for future viewers/consumers for whatever his post-election media career will be.I hope he's not, pillbug, I sincerely hope not. You see Last Week Tonight this week?
Edit: Look, apparently I linked a truncated clip, but just keep searching Youtube till you get get the entire thing, it's hilarious. :)
Egos are like bubblegum bubbles; the bigger they get, the more fragile they are.
It would be a lie if I said I wasn't disappointed this has been such a civil discussion without any of the "nutters" from either side coming out of the woodworks to liven things up. Though I will say I've found it rather interesting there seems do be a much higher left wing demographic amongst gaming communities as a whole than right wing, Just from watching different forums and etc. I wonder why that is? "goes back to further contemplating it."
It would be a lie if I said I wasn't disappointed this has been such a civil discussion without any of the "nutters" from either side coming out of the woodworks to liven things up. Though I will say I've found it rather interesting there seems do be a much higher left wing demographic amongst gaming communities as a whole than right wing, Just from watching different forums and etc. I wonder why that is? "goes back to further contemplating it."
There is no loony left on this issue (or many others)
Hey, now - the University of Chicago just mentioned they're going "Nope" to things like Trigger Warnings, feeling that even if students are made uncomfortable by some of the things they're exposed to, that's part of learning. XD So clearly, not every school is like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, some are just as dangerous and scary, they just don't look like it in comparison.
Think of Father Ted. Ted and Dougal are both crazy, but put them in the same room as Jack they seem perfectly normal.
DRINK!!
Your getting awful defensive there Jeff...
you're the one trying to make false equivalencies.
I did no such thing.
You compared Jill Stein to Trump in terms of danger. The fact that you think these are remotely close is staggering.
Your getting awful defensive there Jeff...I just keep hoping that one time when someone talks about the scary Left, they'll actually have something.
It would mean that there IS a left...