Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
That's because like unicorns they don't actually exist!
That's because like unicorns they don't actually exist!
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
You know how I feel about that. Although honestly I don't know where I'd look. Cato's long gone down the Koch moneyhole. The Austrians are stuck sucking their monetary thumbs. Harry Browne is not walking through that door. (For real. He's dead.)
You know how I feel about that. Although honestly I don't know where I'd look. Cato's long gone down the Koch moneyhole. The Austrians are stuck sucking their monetary thumbs. Harry Browne is not walking through that door. (For real. He's dead.)
P
Priceless
Guest
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Hillary will have to ban cigars from the White House while she's at it.
Hillary will have to ban cigars from the White House while she's at it.
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Who needs the Koch Brothers when you have the world?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?tid=HP_lede?tid=HP_lede
EDIT: Guess who is next?
Who needs the Koch Brothers when you have the world?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5bb1d8ff6a_story.html?tid=HP_lede?tid=HP_lede
EDIT: Guess who is next?
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
I expected this to be far more worrying, actually. If you want big $$$ to contribute to your foundation, you're going to go where the money is: big oil, the banksters, etc. It's essentially a list of companies on Lincoln Center's donor list. And they did the correct thing when it came to the DOS.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't have a problem with it so far. The piece that still worries me is the foreign governments. IIRC Bill was a special guest of one of the near abroad states (Kyrgyzstan?) run by a dictator and a factor in GWOT logistics. At the time I felt that was inappropriate, but for all I know the Bush administration asked him to do it as part of our charm offensive with those states.
And, yes, joe, I agree that when somebody gets around to doing the Bush family's finances it will make this look a lemonade stand.
I expected this to be far more worrying, actually. If you want big $$$ to contribute to your foundation, you're going to go where the money is: big oil, the banksters, etc. It's essentially a list of companies on Lincoln Center's donor list. And they did the correct thing when it came to the DOS.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't have a problem with it so far. The piece that still worries me is the foreign governments. IIRC Bill was a special guest of one of the near abroad states (Kyrgyzstan?) run by a dictator and a factor in GWOT logistics. At the time I felt that was inappropriate, but for all I know the Bush administration asked him to do it as part of our charm offensive with those states.
And, yes, joe, I agree that when somebody gets around to doing the Bush family's finances it will make this look a lemonade stand.
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
This story was always nonsense, but I've enjoyed the political cat and mouse. Put aside personal views of the Clintons for a minute and follow the chess game.
Right wing author and Breitbert contributor pens anti-Hillary book. No big deal. We've seen that before. Difference is New York Times and Washington Post sign some odd "exclusivity agreement" with author thus giving him added credibility. Very clever on his part. 99% of Dems would be buried by this...expect for...
Clintons having been through all this previously have their organizations (Media Matters, etc) already spring into action. Author is revealed as policy advisor to Sarah Palin
which pretty much destroys his credibility. Several holes are poked in accusations including one where he relied on a hoax for his info. Furthermore, anti-Clinton lefties on internet and social media (daily kos, huffington) are now rallying around her and blasting the NYT for taking part in this. Brilliant counter-measures done before the book even gets published.
Lastly in an attempt to burnish bipartisan credentials author claims he'll investigate Bushes next (just don't hold your breath for that one to come out).
So, who wins in all this? The author who sells some books. Also, the Clintons who get to rally Kepler-like lefties to their cause. Who loses? The New York Times and the Washington Post who look like total idiots. I don't get the point of an exclusivity agreement. Its a published book. If any story has legs everyone will investigate it. It seems like an excuse to publish unproven accusations on the front page. For a paper that gave the world Judith Miller and the run up to the Iraq War, you'd think once bitten twice shy would apply here, but I must confess I enjoy watching the NYT sweat over this one.
EDIT: Whoops, looks like Charlie Pierce beat me to the punch!
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34501/the-death-of-political-journalism/
I expected this to be far more worrying, actually. If you want big $$$ to contribute to your foundation, you're going to go where the money is: big oil, the banksters, etc. It's essentially a list of companies on Lincoln Center's donor list. And they did the correct thing when it came to the DOS.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I don't have a problem with it so far. The piece that still worries me is the foreign governments. IIRC Bill was a special guest of one of the near abroad states (Kyrgyzstan?) run by a dictator and a factor in GWOT logistics. At the time I felt that was inappropriate, but for all I know the Bush administration asked him to do it as part of our charm offensive with those states.
And, yes, joe, I agree that when somebody gets around to doing the Bush family's finances it will make this look a lemonade stand.
This story was always nonsense, but I've enjoyed the political cat and mouse. Put aside personal views of the Clintons for a minute and follow the chess game.
Right wing author and Breitbert contributor pens anti-Hillary book. No big deal. We've seen that before. Difference is New York Times and Washington Post sign some odd "exclusivity agreement" with author thus giving him added credibility. Very clever on his part. 99% of Dems would be buried by this...expect for...
Clintons having been through all this previously have their organizations (Media Matters, etc) already spring into action. Author is revealed as policy advisor to Sarah Palin
which pretty much destroys his credibility. Several holes are poked in accusations including one where he relied on a hoax for his info. Furthermore, anti-Clinton lefties on internet and social media (daily kos, huffington) are now rallying around her and blasting the NYT for taking part in this. Brilliant counter-measures done before the book even gets published.Lastly in an attempt to burnish bipartisan credentials author claims he'll investigate Bushes next (just don't hold your breath for that one to come out).
So, who wins in all this? The author who sells some books. Also, the Clintons who get to rally Kepler-like lefties to their cause. Who loses? The New York Times and the Washington Post who look like total idiots. I don't get the point of an exclusivity agreement. Its a published book. If any story has legs everyone will investigate it. It seems like an excuse to publish unproven accusations on the front page. For a paper that gave the world Judith Miller and the run up to the Iraq War, you'd think once bitten twice shy would apply here, but I must confess I enjoy watching the NYT sweat over this one.
EDIT: Whoops, looks like Charlie Pierce beat me to the punch!
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34501/the-death-of-political-journalism/
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Rover
Except the piece came from that noted Clinton fan mag - The Washington Post that independently checked out the book and found some basis in fact.
And today the BH&C Clinton Foundation announced that it is going to refile their Form 990's to disclose the foreign donations
Rover
Except the piece came from that noted Clinton fan mag - The Washington Post that independently checked out the book and found some basis in fact.
And today the BH&C Clinton Foundation announced that it is going to refile their Form 990's to disclose the foreign donations
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
I saw someone's good idea to get behind, reported in a Slate article: Set the minimum wage to half the local median wage (whether by county or state), then you can address income inequality without skyrocketing unemployment and inflation (as across-the-board $15/hour would do). It would be about $7-something in Mississippi and $12-something in the cities. Am I wrong to think this could work? You could of course adjust the % (maybe 40% or 60% would be better) and recalibrate it every 2 years, the data is certainly available.
I saw someone's good idea to get behind, reported in a Slate article: Set the minimum wage to half the local median wage (whether by county or state), then you can address income inequality without skyrocketing unemployment and inflation (as across-the-board $15/hour would do). It would be about $7-something in Mississippi and $12-something in the cities. Am I wrong to think this could work? You could of course adjust the % (maybe 40% or 60% would be better) and recalibrate it every 2 years, the data is certainly available.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
I would be really interested to see how something like that would evolve. Would we see low wage employers that are not in the food service and retail industries relocate to cheaper areas within the same state? Would we see no impact at all because the one-time costs could exceed the potential savings? Would anybody even notice, given the nature of low paying jobs?
I would be really interested to see how something like that would evolve. Would we see low wage employers that are not in the food service and retail industries relocate to cheaper areas within the same state? Would we see no impact at all because the one-time costs could exceed the potential savings? Would anybody even notice, given the nature of low paying jobs?
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
In the ideal fix, it would have a big positive affect on the lowest paid workers, and not really be noticed by anyone else. That's the sweet spot. I think the beauty of this concept is that there wouldn't be a big local shock like there would be if you tried to legislatively equate the economies of Mississippi and Washington DC.
And if it did move a few jobs to poverty-stricken areas to save wages (a widget factory moving from Chicago to some small town with nothing going on), would anyone complain about that?
In the ideal fix, it would have a big positive affect on the lowest paid workers, and not really be noticed by anyone else. That's the sweet spot. I think the beauty of this concept is that there wouldn't be a big local shock like there would be if you tried to legislatively equate the economies of Mississippi and Washington DC.
And if it did move a few jobs to poverty-stricken areas to save wages (a widget factory moving from Chicago to some small town with nothing going on), would anyone complain about that?
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Basis of fact = Clinton Foundation gets foreign donations. We already knew that. BTW - Doesn't the post employ Jennifer Rubin as their top political columnist?
Basis of fact = Clinton Foundation gets foreign donations. We already knew that. BTW - Doesn't the post employ Jennifer Rubin as their top political columnist?
How about "All the News that's Fit to Print" paper?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/2...ontrol-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0&referrer=
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Ummm....you Do know they signed an exclusivity agreement with the author, which kinda taints their reporting just a little....
From the author himself...
"Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don't know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do," he writes. Later, he concludes, "We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately provide the links between the money they took and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates."
So, a fishing expedition?
Ummm....you Do know they signed an exclusivity agreement with the author, which kinda taints their reporting just a little....
From the author himself...
"Short of someone involved coming forward to give sworn testimony, we don't know what might or might not have been said in private conversations, the exact nature of the transition, or why people in power make the decision they do," he writes. Later, he concludes, "We cannot ultimately know what goes on in their minds and ultimately provide the links between the money they took and the benefits that subsequently accrued to themselves, their friends, and their associates."
So, a fishing expedition?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
The GOP strategy for the presidency is for R's to be appointed by justices named by Republican presidents or for D's to be impeached by Republican politicians. That's how they respect the will of the people. Of course they're trying to gin something up on Hillary now; if she wins it's all they'll be doing for the next 9 years. If you thought ODS was cray, wait till you see HDS.
The GOP strategy for the presidency is for R's to be appointed by justices named by Republican presidents or for D's to be impeached by Republican politicians. That's how they respect the will of the people. Of course they're trying to gin something up on Hillary now; if she wins it's all they'll be doing for the next 9 years. If you thought ODS was cray, wait till you see HDS.
busterman62
I got a pocket full of kryptonite
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
Clinton Explanation Plan (Use in ANY instance as required)
A. Coincidence
B. Unnoticed error by Staff member
C. "Our interpretation of the law allows this"
D. Unfounded Accusations by the VRC
E. All the Above
If Nixon had this good of a spin machine, he'd be on Mount Rushmore
Clinton Explanation Plan (Use in ANY instance as required)
A. Coincidence
B. Unnoticed error by Staff member
C. "Our interpretation of the law allows this"
D. Unfounded Accusations by the VRC
E. All the Above
If Nixon had this good of a spin machine, he'd be on Mount Rushmore
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
The amusing part of all of this is to see the generally older angry while male crowd think that a story like this has any legs while the rest of the world sees it as partisan nonsense. The New York Times lost its ability to sway public opinion a long, long time ago. Their death knell was the Judith Miller fiasco. Righties never trusted them and after that neither did anybody else.
buster, if you think that's bad, wait until you see what the Clinton's do to whoever the GOP nominee is.
The amusing part of all of this is to see the generally older angry while male crowd think that a story like this has any legs while the rest of the world sees it as partisan nonsense. The New York Times lost its ability to sway public opinion a long, long time ago. Their death knell was the Judith Miller fiasco. Righties never trusted them and after that neither did anybody else.
buster, if you think that's bad, wait until you see what the Clinton's do to whoever the GOP nominee is.
Re: Campaign 2016 - It's never too late to start all over again!
I never understood why the lamestream media has it out for the Clintons more than any other Dem politician. If I had to speculate, I think they get upset that he denied them their All the President's Men moment when they thought they'd be able to bring down a President in their own time, only to find public opinion firmly on Clinton's side. Or it could just be that interest in the Clintons is above that of any other modern day politician hence the extra scrutiny.
No matter though. The Times is already getting slammed for trying to out Fox Fox News so the fallout should be interesting.
I never understood why the lamestream media has it out for the Clintons more than any other Dem politician. If I had to speculate, I think they get upset that he denied them their All the President's Men moment when they thought they'd be able to bring down a President in their own time, only to find public opinion firmly on Clinton's side. Or it could just be that interest in the Clintons is above that of any other modern day politician hence the extra scrutiny.
No matter though. The Times is already getting slammed for trying to out Fox Fox News so the fallout should be interesting.
- Status