User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Hillary 2016 Page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 31, Prev Next  
TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

Unless there is evidence of direct quid pro quo corruption, the state has no compelling interest in regulating these gifts (there could be evidence, I dunno, time will tell). Thus hath spoken the conservatives on our honorable supreme court in the McCutcheon vs FEC ruling.

How is this any worse than Mitt Romney flying to Israel and holding fundraising dinners? Or the evidence we have that the House of Saud contributed millions to Bush related charities (among other suspected "donations").

This shit is totally legal in the US and has been happening for a long time, and its only going to get worse with all of the shit campaign finance court rulings and bills coming out of the system.

4/22/2015 9:26:52 AM

Smath74
All American
93048 Posts
user info
edit post

hey i'm the secretary of state... i'm going to conduct official business via a private server i set up myself... and then destroy that server when officials legally want to see my emails.

if this was a republican he would have been... well, nixoned.

4/22/2015 5:57:23 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

^its basically what Scott Walker did. He's still alive and doing ok.

4/22/2015 6:11:53 PM

Smath74
All American
93048 Posts
user info
edit post

right

4/22/2015 6:16:14 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

It's documented in court proceedings that they set up an outside server in the Milwaukee Mayors office. Atleast 3 to 4 of his closest aides were convicted on felony charges related to the server. We have records of Wal ker sending emails out on the server telling people to stop campaigning on public time and coordinating the city response to some kid dieing due to a crumbling parking deck. I highly recommend people start googling Walker "John Doe" history.

4/22/2015 8:56:37 PM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

yeah i dont think smath or any other conservative on this board really gives two shits about walker or wisconsin.

at any rate thats pretty small fucking potatoes next to the secretary of state?

you just proved smaths point however; somehow youve attached equal importance to walker and clinton.

youve also done something all the "liberals" here constantly fault conservatives for; "well this democrat did it so it must be ok!"

pretty lame if you ask me.

4/22/2015 9:17:12 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

"We don't give two shits about Walker". (We'll just line up to vote for his sorry ass in November 2016). That's close enough to equal importance between the two, IMO.

How is he small potatoes? They are both leading candidates for president. One was a federal official and one was a city official, an obvious difference, but one has convicted felons associated with it and one, atleast currently, is basically accusations (baseless for all purposes currently). Why dismiss one of the candidates and not the other (because it's convenient) ?

At any rate, my original point is we have examples of previous PRESIDENTS and presidential candidates accepting foreign money, so why is it suddenly so risqué that a previous officials SIgnificant other accepted money? (Oh right because it's convenient. )

We have the exact same politicos arguing for no limits on financial contributions suddenly wringing their hands over alleged foreign contributions......because it's convenient.

Sorry if I call out this double standard. It's just so blatant, if you can't see it then, there really is no convincing you. I just don't see how conservatives can approve of no campaign spending reforms, but suddenly a federal official received (supposedly) random contributions to their charity - and it's the end all of corruption.

But I'm the one being lame

[Edited on April 22, 2015 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

4/22/2015 10:24:10 PM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't really have an issue with foreign contributions, the media likes to stoke people's xenophobic tendencies but I don't see why that's a big deal. The U.S. Government has a major impact on the rest of the world, it makes sense that some foreigners donate.

A bigger problem is that something like 40% of all campaign contributions come from the top .01% of the wealthy people.

It would be concerning if Hillary were selling state secrets or something but I doubt that happened. Regardless, this is what Hillary's opponents are going to pretend this is about. In the absence of any direct evidence of malfeasance, people just point out common things to insinuate that it happened.

This is what the whole birther stuff was about (which Hillary started), it's why people kept associating Romney with Bain capital, it's one of the oldest political trick in the books.

Harping on trivial things in the absence of allegations of wrong doing is exactly what the strategists want, and it's a pointless waste of time.

How about attacking Hillary about something she said, or her platform, or find whatever it is you think she was hiding on those emails.

It's also worth remembering that some of the leaked wikileaks emails were Hillary smack talking other statesmen, some of which required an apology. It seems of anything, this type of thing would be what a secretary of state would defend, and you can't really blame her can you? But I'm sure she must have just been hiding emails detailing how much she hates America, and she really did order a stand down at benghazi.

4/23/2015 12:09:54 AM

rjrumfel
All American
19439 Posts
user info
edit post

What people should be focusing on is not that the contributions were from foreign entities, it is what those entities expect in return.

And it isn't like those contributions went to charity. Calling the Clinton Foundation a charity is like calling Fox News news. Only 15% of the money that goes into the foundation gets passed through. The rest goes to salaries, admin fees, and this "other" category.

4/24/2015 7:15:11 AM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

I bet it's a shell for covert intelligence operations.

And I vaguely recall the Clinton Foundation, through the Hunt foundation, being involved in helping get donors to build Hunt Library.

4/24/2015 12:09:22 PM

shoot
All American
5729 Posts
user info
edit post

Forget about her. She's not gonna win.

4/24/2015 12:26:07 PM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

shoot, the only thing you are qualified to comment on are her legs.

4/24/2015 6:33:02 PM

shoot
All American
5729 Posts
user info
edit post

I have no interest about that.

4/26/2015 8:44:26 PM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't understand why some of my democrat friends prefer Hillary because "she's a sure bet."

At this point can't any democrat nominee beat any republican nominee? Why don't you guys actually pick your FAVORITE and not compromise with the safe choice.

You can't honestly be scared of the current republican field...

5/1/2015 9:24:52 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm really only scared of the amount of money rich people are willing to throw their way. Since elections are about 50% a fundraising competition, at this point, selecting someone capable of raising ungodly amounts of money is about as important as selecting someone whose policies are slightly more closely aligned with your own.

5/2/2015 9:42:07 AM

A Tanzarian
salad syrup
8614 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah, the winner of the Republican's plutocrat primary will be rewarded with a billion dollars. It's hard to write off a candidate with that much cash.

5/2/2015 12:31:34 PM

skywalkr
All American
6680 Posts
user info
edit post

It amazes me that raising so much money is so instrumental in winning an election. I mean, I have never been swayed by a tv commercial, newspaper ad, bumper sticker, campaign sign, etc.

Then again, this country is full of morons.

5/2/2015 3:17:51 PM

bbehe
#TeamGyro
16625 Posts
user info
edit post

Has anyone done polling on matchups between any Republican and Sanders/Warren/etc?

^ I honestly have no idea, I'm honestly not going to be convinced by a 30 second tv spot either.

5/2/2015 3:57:42 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

The moron factor is definitely significant for both parties, but I'm also convinced that it is our old folks that are the most susceptible to that type advertising. Our generation has been beat over the head with advertising since the day we were born and we are more likely to yawn or act with a cynical "yea right" toward any type of commercial. Where older folks prob have more experience with trusting cable news, TV commercials, etc. It's the same reason that scams often target old folks, the same reason why my grandfather sends a $25 check to every other cause that happens to send him a mailer for a "free gift w/ your donation" and the same reason that QVC is still a cable channel.

5/2/2015 4:48:58 PM

A Tanzarian
salad syrup
8614 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"It amazes me that raising so much money is so instrumental in winning an election."


What should really amaze you is that the Democrat nominee, and likely the Republican, will be selected before the first primary is held.

5/2/2015 5:14:36 PM

eleusis
All American
23764 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"It's the same reason that scams often target old folks,"


scams target old folks because they have money. What's the point of targeting the younger generation when the vast majority of them are either broke or in debt?

5/3/2015 3:05:41 PM

Fareako
Shitter Pilot
10238 Posts
user info
edit post

hiLOLry

5/3/2015 3:22:36 PM

Bullet
All American
22641 Posts
user info
edit post

that's almost as clever as Obummer

5/4/2015 8:46:03 AM

eyewall41
All American
2011 Posts
user info
edit post

Her top donors are Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. No thanks! I'll go with Bernie!

5/4/2015 10:08:56 AM

Kurtis636
All American
14984 Posts
user info
edit post

You mean the guy whose top donors are all unions?

I guess it's a choice on who you want your candidate to be beholden to. Not really sure that one of those is substantially better than the other.

5/4/2015 4:23:01 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

Banks brought the economy to its knees and got away with it, unions only wish they had that kind of power, even at their peak (since they are basically shells of their former selves).

I'm ready to see Sanders start ripping Hillary a new asshole, his fundraising has actually been fairly good so far.

5/4/2015 6:03:12 PM

synapse
play so hard
53008 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html

5/6/2015 1:14:55 PM

shoot
All American
5729 Posts
user info
edit post

She's getting evil, definitely going to the wrong direction.

5/6/2015 1:29:39 PM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-court-donors-for-super-pac.html?_r=0

IF you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Very ironic, this...

5/6/2015 11:30:41 PM

dtownral
All American
19894 Posts
user info
edit post

wouldn't being ironic require her to have not been about big money at some point?

5/7/2015 8:03:16 AM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

I meant the existence of SuperPACS is traceable to the Citizens United decision, which was a video made to originally be against Hillary.

5/7/2015 12:09:07 PM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post



http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-campaign-uses-rope-corral-media-new-hampshire

7/5/2015 1:48:17 PM

dtownral
All American
19894 Posts
user info
edit post

i'm fine with that, these events should be about the supporters and not flooded with national media

7/6/2015 11:02:03 AM

Kurtis636
All American
14984 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The third of Mrs. Clinton’s three kinds of growth—strong growth, fair growth, and long-term growth—may be the most intriguing. Denouncing what she called "quarterly capitalism," Mrs. Clinton said she wants to change the rules to encourage companies and investors to think about the "next decade" rather than the "next day." She said she’d go into more detail soon about the capital gains plan, but a signal to where she is headed is available in two think tank reports.

The first, a June 30, 2015 paper issued by Neera Tanden and Blair Effron of the Center for American Progress, recommends "a sliding-scale capital gains tax that determines the rate charged to investors in accordance with the holding period of the security." They write, "The existing capital gains tax is nominally targeted at rewarding long-term investment, but it falls short in practice. Hold an investment for 364 days, and it is a short-term gain; hold it for one more day, and it instantly becomes long term and qualifies for favorable tax treatment. There is no theory that suggests investments become magically more prudent on day 365, nor is there any reason to believe that one-year investments have the same effect on long-term growth as 10-year investments. Yet once an investor holds a share past the one-year mark, the tax code provides no incentives to maintain the position any longer."
The second, a September 2009 paper from an Aspen Institute group that included Warren Buffett, Lester Crown, Peter Peterson, Martin Lipton, and Louis Gerstner, recommended, "Revise capital gains tax provisions or implement an excise tax in ways that are designed to discourage excessive share trading and encourage longer term share ownership. Capital gains tax rates might be set on a descending scale based on the number of years a security is held. An excise tax could be imposed that would also allow for the inclusion of tax-exempt and other investment entities."
"


This is probably one of the more sensible approaches to changing capital gains taxes. My first preference would be to eliminate them altogether, but making them lower the longer the a security is held makes a lot of sense. I've often bitched about short term thinking on the part of shareholders leading to horrific decision making by companies. Something that incentivizes long term investment vs. quarterly performance would be a good thing.

7/15/2015 12:46:00 AM

dtownral
All American
19894 Posts
user info
edit post

Financial adviser: Clinton won't push Glass-Steagall bank bill

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill

7/15/2015 10:57:38 AM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post

she supposedly turned over the email server to the DOJ. i bet she scrubbed the emails about state dept favors for Clinton foundation donations tho

8/11/2015 8:17:51 PM

Geppetto
All American
1395 Posts
user info
edit post

Without much detail i can't favor one way or the other but I will say I find the idea of a sliding capital gains tax intriguing.

At first glance, I believe I'd be more likely to hold on for additional years if I knew that my tax rate would go down to 10%, 5% or 3%.

8/12/2015 1:35:06 PM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

^ If i'm understanding the idea right, that seems like it would encourage individual investors to stay in a position longer, but the big institutional investors already stake out long positions on stocks. That scale, if it applies to corporations, seems like it just gives them yet another loophole to avoid paying taxes. It basically turns any investment account held for a few years into how people would use a Roth IRA, except you don't have to wait until retirement to get the benefit.

That doesn't seem like it would do anything to address the capital gains loopholes, or inequality, or even encourage more investment. Seems like it makes it easier for big investors to cash out profits with lower taxes than they pay now, and harder for smaller investors from building a sizable portfolio.

8/12/2015 1:43:50 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5039 Posts
user info
edit post

Hedge funds and investment banks with out a doubt have a lot of long-term investments, but most of the big ones also have a high-frequency trading arm too. HFT is responsible for like 50+% of all trades on Wall Street, and the average holding time for a stock in the U.S. Is like 30 seconds. Some of the big investment banks are estimated to be making a few $billion per year from their HFT arms.

That's who this type of tax would target the most, I'm ok with that.

8/12/2015 5:52:32 PM

Geppetto
All American
1395 Posts
user info
edit post

If it turns my investments into a roth-like endeavor, then that would be great. The ability to have tax free or nominally taxed trades would be a huge advantage. I really like having a roth but it sounds like this would not have any caps on investment, such as the current $5500 roth limit, and that I may be able to pull out the investments prior to 40 years out, which would be great for purchasing a home, child's tuition, etc...

8/13/2015 11:13:03 AM

0EPII1
All American
39630 Posts
user info
edit post

So why has she been given special treatment?

http://observer.com/2015/08/the-countless-crimes-of-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor-needed-now/

8/14/2015 1:43:04 AM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post

^same reason her hubby didnt go to prison for obstruction of justice and perjury. the fox is guarding hen house

8/14/2015 6:44:42 AM

HCH
All American
3039 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't know how anyone watches video and news of Hillary and doesn't immediately think of Julia Louis-Dreyfus on Veep. It is hilarious.

8/18/2015 3:25:21 PM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"WASHINGTON -- Newly released video of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's private meeting with Black Lives Matter activists in New Hampshire last week shows a testy exchange between Clinton and the activists.

In one of two clips of the meeting posted by Good Magazine on Monday, Clinton suggests that the activists need to have strong policy goals if they want to create real change, using the women's and gay rights movements as a comparison.

One of the activists takes issue with her comments. "This is and has always been a white problem of violence. There's not much that we [black people] can do to stop the violence against us," Julius Jones of Black Lives Matter tells Clinton.

Clinton pushes back: "Respectfully, if that is your position, then I will only talk to white people about the very real problems.""


haha

that's way worse than romneys 47% comment

8/18/2015 5:59:09 PM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

^ did you even watch the video?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-black-lives-matter_55d2ad41e4b055a6dab1453f
Hillary gave a great answer... surprisingly good, I didn't expect it honestly.

Really nothing remotely like Romney's 47% thing.

The person she was talking to did a great job as well. Overall, i find the whole exchange very pleasing. I wish we could see honest dialog like that more often, between informed people.

[Edited on August 18, 2015 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2015 6:25:27 PM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post

^yeah i saw the video. she was making some good points but she did get a little snippy with him

8/18/2015 8:09:32 PM

moron
All American
30112 Posts
user info
edit post

She got snippy, but there's nothing wrong with that, he deserved it really.

8/18/2015 8:21:21 PM

0EPII1
All American
39630 Posts
user info
edit post

LOL

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/08/18/watch-how-hillary-responds-when-fox-news-reporter-repeatedly-presses-her-on-whether-she-wiped-server-its-a-simple-question

Quote :
"Like with a cloth?"


8/18/2015 11:55:05 PM

beatsunc
All American
8869 Posts
user info
edit post

^she acts like she is doing you a favor by even letting you ask her a question

she sucks at campaigning so bad she couldn't beat a guy nobody ever heard of with a muslim name last time

8/19/2015 5:28:38 AM

Bullet
All American
22641 Posts
user info
edit post

i don't think the surname "obama" is actually a muslim name. it originates in africa, south sudan/ethiopia/kenya, where christianity, judaism and traditional african religions was more prominent.

and "barak" is an israeli name.

"hussein" is an arabic name.

(i don't the complete accuracy of these claims)

8/19/2015 9:41:21 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » Hillary 2016 Page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 ... 31, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.