Democratic Election Thread

[Landlord]

It's just common sense that if someone gives you a ton of money and supports you financially, they're doing it for their own long-term gain.

[Danny Bateman]

I'd much rather just see if she gets elected and let her actions speak for themselves.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals.

Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star!

 

The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem.

 

That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do.

 

I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever.

 

Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people?

 

Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state...

 

There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak.

 

The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something.

 

Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/

 

 

Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector.

 

Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones.

 

I may seem naive. (yes)

 

 

 

Just caught wind this a.m. that Billary sets the $ for their speaking engagements. So, I guess there is some negotiation that goes on. Obviously, they could speak for a much more modest price so as to avoid public outrage--how about $7.25/hr? What information is being conveyed in one hour that constitutes 100s of 1000s of $ in bribe money? Sorry, Wall St. owns Billary.

 

 

As to cybersecurity, well, if you have been following the FBI Director's senate hearings on the subject, he says that they are employing the best cyber freaks from Silicon Valley to help out. But, unfortunately, the gangstas are always 1-2 steps ahead. I guess the best cyber freaks are gangstas.

 

As to your other point, wrong:

 

 

Employees for the federal government earn far more than their counterparts in the private sector, according to a new study by the Cato Institute. The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.

“The federal government has become an elite island of secure and high-paid employment, separated from the ocean of average Americans competing in the economy,” the Edwards wrote.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/

[cornographic]

I'd much rather just see if she gets elected and let her actions speak for themselves.

Well, Slick Willy gave us NAFTA, the move of the Dem Party to the corporate right, the repeal of Glass/Steagall which eventually led to the bank crash, expanded incarceration laws to which he has recently said, "I'm sorry", vastly more sales of armaments than in the decades prior to him, Monika, and so much more. So for Hillary, the nut doesn't fall too far from the tree, as they say.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals.

Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star!

 

The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem.

 

That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do.

 

I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever.

 

Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people?

 

Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state...

 

There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak.

 

The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something.

 

Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/

 

 

Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector.

 

Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones.

 

I may seem naive. (yes)

 

 

 

Just caught wind this a.m. that Billary sets the $ for their speaking engagements. So, I guess there is some negotiation that goes on. Obviously, they could speak for a much more modest price so as to avoid public outrage--how about $7.25/hr? What information is being conveyed in one hour that constitutes 100s of 1000s of $ in bribe money? Sorry, Wall St. owns Billary.

 

 

As to cybersecurity, well, if you have been following the FBI Director's senate hearings on the subject, he says that they are employing the best cyber freaks from Silicon Valley to help out. But, unfortunately, the gangstas are always 1-2 steps ahead. I guess the best cyber freaks are gangstas.

 

As to your other point, wrong:

 

 

Employees for the federal government earn far more than their counterparts in the private sector, according to a new study by the Cato Institute. The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.

“The federal government has become an elite island of secure and high-paid employment, separated from the ocean of average Americans competing in the economy,” the Edwards wrote.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/

 

 

Corn, you pull all your sources from right-wing nut job sites? Once again, the Washington Free Beacon is a heavyweight on the conservative media circuit:

 

 

The New York Times described the Free Beacon's reporting as "gleeful evisceration."^[7] However, its tactics have also led to attacks from media critics and watchdog groups. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf called the Free Beacon's stated mission "decadent and unethical."^[8]Media Matters for America founder David Brock sent a letter to news organizations in 2014 saying, "If credible media outlets regard the unethical practices of The Free Beacon as valid, all of journalism will be debased."^[9]

 

Clearly, they've got an agenda. But wait, it gets better!

 

The study you mentioned was courtesy of the Cato Institute. Sounds official, but what's the Cato Institute, you ask? Let me provide you with a little bit of context:

 

 

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,^[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.^{[nb 1]}

 

Ok, now I know I don't have to take it seriously.

 

Here are a couple articles that contradict that. Bloomberg, in 2014, seemed to take issue with the government's pay. Another article by Nextgov suggests that it's not pay differential but rather red tape that makes government jobs undesirable.

 

It's fairly obvious I'm not going to change your mind on the Clintons, Corn, as you're obviously not a fan. Just food for thought for everyone else, and how I see things from where I stand.

[cornographic]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hilary accusing him of a smear job from some imaginary moral high ground was probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard her claim.

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify.

 

Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals.

Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star!

 

The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem.

 

That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf.

 

 

 

Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do.

 

I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever.

 

Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people?

 

Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state...

 

There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak.

 

The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something.

 

Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g.

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/

 

 

Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector.

 

Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones.

 

I may seem naive. (yes)

 

 

 

Just caught wind this a.m. that Billary sets the $ for their speaking engagements. So, I guess there is some negotiation that goes on. Obviously, they could speak for a much more modest price so as to avoid public outrage--how about $7.25/hr? What information is being conveyed in one hour that constitutes 100s of 1000s of $ in bribe money? Sorry, Wall St. owns Billary.

 

 

As to cybersecurity, well, if you have been following the FBI Director's senate hearings on the subject, he says that they are employing the best cyber freaks from Silicon Valley to help out. But, unfortunately, the gangstas are always 1-2 steps ahead. I guess the best cyber freaks are gangstas.

 

As to your other point, wrong:

 

 

Employees for the federal government earn far more than their counterparts in the private sector, according to a new study by the Cato Institute. The study found that federal government workers earned an average of $84,153 in 2014, compared to the private sector’s average of $56,350. Cato based its findings on figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). But when adding in benefits pay for federal workers, the difference becomes more dramatic. Federal employees made $119,934 in total compensation last year, while private sector workers earned $67,246, a difference of over $52,000, or 78 percent.

“The federal government has become an elite island of secure and high-paid employment, separated from the ocean of average Americans competing in the economy,” the Edwards wrote.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/

 

 

Corn, you pull all your sources from right-wing nut job sites? Once again, the Washington Free Beacon is a heavyweight on the conservative media circuit:

 

 

The New York Times described the Free Beacon's reporting as "gleeful evisceration."^[7] However, its tactics have also led to attacks from media critics and watchdog groups. The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf called the Free Beacon's stated mission "decadent and unethical."^[8]Media Matters for America founder David Brock sent a letter to news organizations in 2014 saying, "If credible media outlets regard the unethical practices of The Free Beacon as valid, all of journalism will be debased."^[9]

 

Clearly, they've got an agenda. But wait, it gets better!

 

The study you mentioned was courtesy of the Cato Institute. Sounds official, but what's the Cato Institute, you ask? Let me provide you with a little bit of context:

 

 

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,^[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.^{[nb 1]}

 

Ok, now I know I don't have to take it seriously.

 

Here are a couple articles that contradict that. Bloomberg, in 2014, seemed to take issue with the government's pay. Another article by Nextgov suggests that it's not pay differential but rather red tape that makes government jobs undesirable.

 

It's fairly obvious I'm not going to change your mind on the Clintons, Corn, as you're obviously not a fan. Just food for thought for everyone else, and how I see things from where I stand.

 

 

 

My PHD sis in law is w the USDA, big fat salary and every bene imaginable. Writes papers, give talks, maybe sometimes accomplishes something. Know a guy up here w the FBI, his main place is in Manhattan and he has a big summer home up here on the lake. Has at least 3 Beemers, full health, pension, annuity, the whole 9. Living large, yo. Not saying you can't make $ in the private sector, just saying gov't jobs--even though they may suck--are a good deal.

 

 

Union tradesmen/workers are far better off than non union tradesmen/workers also. Allotta illegal 1099(employee misclassification) bullsh#t in the private construction world these days.

[Saunders]

[TGHusker]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268935-clinton-likely-to-leave-nh-with-same-number-of-delegates

 

This super delegate issue is a shame. This is the 'ruling' class looking out for its own. The political old timers build coalitions and gain IOUs of delegates that can

override the vote of 'we the people'. The bread is buttered for insiders and those who can leverage power of influence over the 'local politicians' - who are probably

looking for a step up by supporting the powerful candidate. The newcomer on the stage has a harder battle to fight.

[TGHusker]

Pretty 'damming' if you ask me. But I never liked her anyway. She has made lying into an art form.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Pretty 'damming' if you ask me. But I never liked her anyway. She has made lying into an art form.

 

That is a pretty dang interesting video. Say and do whatever it takes to get elected. That's been the Clinton's SOP since they were running for governor in Arkansas.

 

I would be interested in knowing who put that together and put it on Youtube.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Pretty 'damming' if you ask me. But I never liked her anyway. She has made lying into an art form.

 

That is a pretty dang interesting video. Say and do whatever it takes to get elected. That's been the Clinton's SOP since they were running for governor in Arkansas.

 

I would be interested in knowing who put that together and put it on Youtube.

 

I don't know but you might be able to find their body in some park some place.... just saying

[BigRedBuster]

It would just be really interesting to know if it was Bernie supporters or Republican supporters. But....your comment did make me laugh.

[zoogs]

Interesting perspectives on whence Bernie's foreign policy vulnerability came: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10966582/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-foreign-policy

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting perspectives on whence Bernie's foreign policy vulnerability came: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10966582/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-foreign-policy

 

So....we might be left with both Trump and Sanders who are disasters in foreign affairs....or Clinton......

 

Gee.....why am I not more excited about this?

[zoogs]

I think Clinton's foreign policy will be quite capable, and it definitely helps that she has been able to lean on so much experience. I guess we'll see. I know many find Obama to be not hawkish enough. That's not me, but for those people Clinton could be a welcome direction.

 

I think the Democrats were mistaken to go all in on Hillary. I'm saddened that Biden and especially Warren did not run. I feel in their absence Bernie has capitalized with the stronger progressives, but that he is not nearly as worthy a candidate as Warren would have been.

 

That being said, to even succeed as a Republican in politics requires numerous positions social and economic that are odious and total non starters for me. With as many identified independents as there are today (good thread on that, btw) I hope that one outcome in the near future is the dissolution of the two party stranglehold. It may have been fine before, but not in today's climate -- a reality which I think has been a shock to both party bases but one that I now hope will prevail.