+ Reply to Thread
Page 469 of 1499 FirstFirst ... 369 419 459 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 479 519 569 969 1469 ... LastLast
Results 11,701 to 11,725 of 37473

Thread: Election 2016

  1. #11701
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    Well I'm talking about campaign contributions. We now for a fact that Hillary has raised far more money from these influence purchasers. This is bad yes?
    Yes. Many of us have said many times that we don't see Citizens United as a partisan issue - that the hugely increased role of big money and dark money is bad, period.

  2. #11702

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Yes. Many of us have said many times that we don't see Citizens United as a partisan issue - that the hugely increased role of big money and dark money is bad, period.
    Some liberals are principled on this sure. But the poster I was responding to replied to the Chinese donor investigation story with "The Koch brothers", so I wanted to see where they stood.

  3. #11703

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    Some liberals are principled on this sure. But the poster I was responding to replied to the Chinese donor investigation story with "The Koch brothers", so I wanted to see where they stood.
    You should have just asked politely and completely. The baiting/gotcha game is boring.

  4. #11704

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Texsahara View Post
    You should have just asked politely and completely. The baiting/gotcha game is boring.
    I did ask politely. How was I rude?
    And what bores me is people who pretend that 2+2 =5. See the reply ojo gave me when the comparison was made plain.

  5. #11705
    Should have been Bernie Mr Coffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by 21stAmendment View Post
    If Trump won't debate Bernie, maybe ask Bieber

    Sure he needs the attention, but it's unsightly to see Bernie campaign so desperate.
    If Hillary kept her word, it wouldn't be an issue.

    But that's like wishing for snow in July.

  6. #11706
    Should have been Bernie Mr Coffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post
    Generally true for US Sales. Foreign Military Sales are a little different. Regardless, a US Defense contractor doesn't just negotiate with foreign interests. They do so through the US Government, specifically the State Department. This particular sale was of historically high value, and was vehemently opposed by Israel. The Secretary of State pushed the process through. The same Secretary of State who had received huge contributions form both the Saudis and from Boeing.


    This scenario is most certainly NOT a routine sale to the lowest bidder. It may or may not have been in the best interests of the United States. But whether it was or not, there is no doubt the Secretary had a conflict of interest. She should have recused herself from any decision regarding either the Saudis OR Boeing.


    Going back to your hypothetical scenario, why should anyone believe Hillary, as President, would make a decision going against a donor, when there's already evidence that she has made a decision benefitting a donor?
    Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

    The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
    The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

    As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.
    Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions -- a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.
    “The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”

    Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

    “These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”
    http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-found...rtment-1934187

  7. #11707
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    I did ask politely. How was I rude?
    And what bores me is people who pretend that 2+2 =5. See the reply ojo gave me when the comparison was made plain.
    I answered your implication with a raise that the Koch Brothers are as dark as any money currently in politics today, and called your hand with an 'all dark money is bad' statement.

    I'm pretty sure my hand has been a pretty easy read. There's a reason why I said the real stateside war is labor's struggle v management. Get back to the math and you'll see what I'm getting at.

  8. #11708

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    I answered your implication with a raise that the Koch Brothers are as dark as any money currently in politics today, and called your hand with an 'all dark money is bad' statement.

    I'm pretty sure my hand has been a pretty easy read. There's a reason why I said the real stateside war is labor's struggle v management. Get back to the math and you'll see what I'm getting at.
    Which candidate has received more money from influence seekers and lobbyists. Clinton or Trump?

  9. #11709
    Should have been Bernie Mr Coffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by BRenninger View Post
    Trump backing out of the Bernie debate. Said he was only kidding.
    Not seeing this anywhere.

    Source?

  10. #11710
    Forum Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    USA

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by 21stAmendment View Post
    and if Bernie was in Clinton's shoes he wouldn't do another debate either. Nothing to gain.
    I seriously doubt it. There's a giant difference between Hillary & Bernie - principles.

    Personally, I view Hillary as a sad & pathetic creature. She never made it on her own. Instead, she rode in on the coat tails of her husband. Now, she's running only on what is owed her for being the dutiful wife & party hack.

  11. #11711
    Not fooling anyone. Soriambi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New Jersey

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Coffee View Post
    Not seeing this anywhere.

    Source?
    "A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate’s openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published."

    http://time.com/4349162/donald-trump...anders-debate/
    -Kevin

    "My point is you can't compare things with statistics." Joe Morgan


    "I'd have won that trial. I've often said that." Stephen A. Smith on the OJ Simpson trial

    RIP, Pete.

  12. #11712
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    Which candidate has received more money from influence seekers and lobbyists. Clinton or Trump?
    Trump's been a thing for what, a year? Clinton is the wife of a former two-term president from twenty years ago.

    He's laughable if he attempts to run on a "get corporate influence out" platform.

    I'll add that Trump doesn't strike me as a man of virtue.

    Again, I'm voting for SCOTUS.

  13. #11713

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    Trump's been a thing for what, a year? Clinton is the wife of a former two-term president from twenty years ago.

    He's laughable if he attempts to run on a "get corporate influence out" platform.

    I'll add that Trump doesn't strike me as a man of virtue.

    Again, I'm voting for SCOTUS.
    Even in the last year she's raised more from these people. MUCH more.
    Be that as it may, do you concede that Trump is better on the issue of who is more corrupt?

  14. #11714

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Coffee View Post
    If Hillary kept her word, it wouldn't be an issue.

    But that's like wishing for snow in July.
    In 1995, I saw snow in July, somewhere high in the mountains of Colorado. I'm not used to snow in January, so it truly was amazing.
    Black Lives Matter.

  15. #11715
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by jlw1980 View Post
    In 1995, I saw snow in July, somewhere high in the mountains of Colorado. I'm not used to snow in January, so it truly was amazing.
    If you're high in the mountains of Colorado - high enough, anyway - you can see lots of strange things.

    (Yes, I know, I'm a strange thing. I believe in pre-emptive strikes.)
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
    - Barry Manilow

  16. #11716
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    Even in the last year she's raised more from these people. MUCH more.
    Be that as it may, do you concede that Trump is better on the issue of who is more corrupt?
    If you're asking me who is more corruptible? I don't think megalomania is the answer when you're looking for uncorruptible leadership.

  17. #11717
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    I live by the Sound

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    If you're high in the mountains of Colorado - high enough, anyway - you can see lots of strange things.

    (Yes, I know, I'm a strange thing. I believe in pre-emptive strikes.)
    When I'm high in the mountains - usually after hooking down a relatively trivial amount of acid from this guy in a purple hat my brother knows - I like to relax with a tall cold sweaty edible bottle of Bear Whiz Beer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rmwEyIBBQM

  18. #11718
    Let's go Rangers! RhodyYanksFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    lil'rhody

    Re: Election 2016

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us...gy-policy.html

    He did not explicitly address the scientific legitimacy of human-caused climate change, but said, “We’re going to deal with real environmental challenges, not the phony ones we’ve been hearing about.”

    Mr. Trump said that in his first 100 days in office, he would “rescind” Environmental Protection Agency regulations established under Mr. Obama to curb planet-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants.


    Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change
    “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones — how stupid is that?” Mr. Trump said.

    However, the next president will not have the legal authority to unilaterally rescind the climate rules, which are now being litigated in federal courts. If, as is widely expected, the case goes to the Supreme Court, the justices, rather than the president, will determine its fate. But if elected, Mr. Trump could nominate a new Supreme Court justice to help strike down the rule.
    He managed to pull off the trifecta of ignorant on science, economics and politics in one speech. The man is unfit for the Presidency.


    “We’re going to bring back the coal industry, save the coal industry,” he said. “I love those people.”

    It is unclear how Mr. Trump could restore lost jobs in the coal industry. As domestic coal demand has declined, companies have laid off thousands of miners. But economists say that shift is driven by market forces: The natural gas boom led power companies to buy cheaper gas rather than coal.
    For such a smart businessman, he sure doesn't seem to understand how markets work. There's a reason coal jobs have declined and it's not Obama's policies. It's global market forces. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner and there's more demand for it. That's the simple fact. Anyone who took a Intro to Macroeconomics knows this, but instead we have a viable Presidential candidate promising he'll return thousands of jobs that don't exist anymore. I hate him.

  19. #11719
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by RhodyYanksFan View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us...gy-policy.html



    He managed to pull off the trifecta of ignorant on science, economics and politics in one speech. The man is unfit for the Presidency.



    For such a smart businessman, he sure doesn't seem to understand how markets work. There's a reason coal jobs have declined and it's not Obama's policies. It's global market forces. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner and there's more demand for it. That's the simple fact. Anyone who took a Intro to Macroeconomics knows this, but instead we have a viable Presidential candidate promising he'll return thousands of jobs that don't exist anymore. I hate him.
    Empty suit.

  20. #11720
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    I live by the Sound

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    If you're asking me who is more corruptible? I don't think megalomania is the answer when you're looking for uncorruptible leadership.
    nor one who is likely to respect democratic (small d) institutions. Has anyone in the Trump boardroom (his prep for this job) ever said "no" to him like Congress (even a Republican-majority one) will at times?

  21. #11721
    Should have been Bernie Mr Coffee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Re: Election 2016

    Hillary still clinging to her 'it was allowed' defense despite the IG report to the contrary.

    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wat...t-693313091808

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2651043

  22. #11722
    NYYF Legend

    Casey at the Bat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Big Bear Lake, CA

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by ShannonC View Post
    Which candidate has received more money from influence seekers and lobbyists. Clinton or Trump?
    This is kind of a weird question, since one of the candidates IS an influence seeker/lobbyist. Trump had admitted it himself, that he has given money to both parties over the years to get political favors, and now we want to put him in the White House because he would take the influence of money out of politics? Then, of course, he starts fundraising this week (or last, I get the timeline mixed up), and says it's the GOP, not me?

    There was a story on This American Life a year or so ago that talked about the fundraising in politics (I think it was titled, "Take The Money and Run) that showed about half of every day spent in office is spent raising money for the next election, for the party, etc. Everyone is dirty with money. Everyone (yes, even Trump and Bernie).

    Edit: here's a link.
    http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-...run-for-office

  23. #11723
    Get Off My Lawn. Maynerd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Coffee View Post
    Hillary still clinging to her 'it was allowed' defense despite the IG report to the contrary.
    Lie #1. "It was allowed." The IG report very clearly shows it was not, and that the Secretary was aware it wasn't allowed.


    Lie #2. "My predecessors did it." Powell occasionally used a personal e-mail account, but did NOT have his official correspondence stored on an unsecure, non-encrypted server in his home. Neither did Rice.


    Lie #3. "The server was secure." The IG report shows more than one instance where the server was attacked, and everyone seemed to know about it. During one of the attacks, one of her Deputies even e-mailed the staff to instruct them not to send "anything sensitive" to the Secretary.


    Lie #4. "I've been helpful and transparent during this investigation." Um....no. Unless your definition of "helpful" includes refusing to talk to the investigators, and having your chief aide (Abedin) similarly refuse to talk to them.


    Lie #5. "I turned over all the relevant e-mails," and "I only deleted the e-mails that involved personal business, like Chelsea's wedding arrangements." The IG report shows that, according to what she turned over, she didn't receive a single 'official' e-mail between 1/21/09 and 3/17/09, and that she didn't send a single e-mail between 1/21/09 and 4/12/09.


    Again, I'm dumbfounded that ANYONE could support this person for the Presidency. If her name was anything other than Hillary Clinton, she'd be more likely to be headed to prison, rather than the White House.

    "But what people tend to forget...is that being a Yankee is as much about character as it is about performance; as much about who you are as what you do."
    - President Barack Obama

  24. #11724
    NYYF Legend


    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    I live by the Sound

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post

    Again, I'm dumbfounded that ANYONE could support this person for the Presidency. If her name was anything other than Hillary Clinton, she'd be more likely to be headed to prison, rather than the White House.
    I hear you but luckily for her the GOP just made the worst presidential nomination since the Democrats picked Gen. George McClellan in 1864. Maybe worse even. To keep the Civil War thing going, in Ted Turner's Gettysburg movie, Tom Berenger playing Gen. James Longstreet says "you just pick your nightmare side and move on." Yeah.

    Personally, I'm dumbfounded at all the people who think Donald Trump is that benevolent Carnegie-style Gospel of Wealth guy who's going to swoop in and fix their lives and long-gone wrong choices.

  25. #11725
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    baltimore, md

    Re: Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by Maynerd View Post


    Again, I'm dumbfounded that ANYONE could support this person for the Presidency. If her name was anything other than Hillary Clinton, she'd be more likely to be headed to prison, rather than the White House.
    1) SCOTUS
    2) I think Donald Trump is a vile human being.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts