192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:02 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The Clinton's didn't just "make" 100 million. Their current net worth is said to be in the $100+ million range (about $150 million, I heard) ...


A wonderful, Trump-like story, Mr Factual.
layman
 
  -2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:13 pm
@camlok,
From Forbes, generally acknowledged to be experts in such financial questions:

Quote:
How Hillary and Bill Clinton Parlayed Decades of Public Service into Vast Wealth

2014 family Income: $28 million
Estimated family net worth: $110 million

Few people resent politicians who make lots of money from selling memoirs, or starting a business. But the Clintons’ particular business—getting paid a multiple of the typical American family’s annual income for a 40-minute speech—raises some appearance problems. It’s hard to come across as a credible critic of Wall Street when your bed is feathered with six-figure speaking payments to investment banks and private equity firms.



http://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/

Of course, if only they hadn't been forced to return/pay for all the **** they stole from the White House on their way out, they would be even richer.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:20 pm
@blatham,
Gopnik's a nice guy and I enjoy his novels, but even given the time he's spent in Canada, I don't think he's got a good grasp of how the country developed or how it compares to how the US developed. Take a look at the folks who've done research into the differences in how the countries grew - there's an interesting geographical difference and I'm with the social scientists who theorize that as a significant source of the differences between Canada and the US.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:41 pm
@layman,
Oh, wait, that wasn't Forbes, that was Fortune. This is Forbes:

Quote:
How Bill And Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million In The Last 15 Years

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have turned political fame into a personal fortune, raking in more than $240 million, according to a FORBES analysis of 15 years of their tax returns

[Bill Clinton] made $15 million advising billionaire Ron Burkle’s investment firm Yucaipa and another $24 million consulting for-profit education companies Laureate Education and GMS Education.

Although Hillary’s earnings lagged during her years in the Senate (2001-09) and President Obama’s cabinet (2009-13), she quickly made up for lost time after leaving public office. She earned $9 million in speaking fees in both 2013 and 2014.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2016/11/08/how-bill-house-hillary-clinton-made-240-million-how-much-earnings-rich-white/#38d61b857a16

But, as Forbes has also noted, there are some SERIOUS discrepancies in the financial disclosures and tax returns they were required by law to file, so nobody can really tell what's going on with them:

Quote:
The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions

“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”

WHERE COULD THAT much money have disappeared? The Clintons did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Others were just as perplexed as we were.

“I don’t see how that would be possible,” said Jeff Mussatt, a certified financial planner who helped put together the financial disclosures for Republican presidential candidate Jim Gilmore. “That’s quite a mystery you have on your hands.”


https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2015/09/29/the-mystery-of-hillarys-missing-millions/#3b8d329e4bdf

Well, ya know, straight up lies often raise questions that the perps are unwilling to answer, so.....

camlok
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:43 pm
@ehBeth,
Nice overly general comments to help you squeezed out of your conundrum.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:43 pm
@nimh,
None of those are Trump so I'm not sure why you think the points thing is important.

Do you know who "Old Gil Gunderson" is on the Simpsons? He is the Democrat party in its current form. Losing election after election but always by just a little bit. Next time they'll win by darn! Every election will be a testament of how lousy Trump is! We'll win some day I tells ya!

It's impressive that you think that losing by a slimmer margin is a good thing. I could never do that.
camlok
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:44 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Well, ya know, straight up lies often raise questions that the perps are unwilling to answer, so.....


A nice summation of the USA as a whole.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:47 pm
How stupid does someone have to be to completely gloss over the ever-unfolding, ocean-sized cesspool of Trump conflicts of interest, corruption and greed and rather than give any attention at all to that, just keep up a constant blathering spew of imaginary Clinton/Obama offenses? How deranged, how deluded, and just how ******* stupid?
Don't worry about it. I feel much better just having asked the rhetorical.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:48 pm
@blatham,
You are uncomfortable or in disagreement with my use of "myth" here. You won't be the only one. As Gopnik put it
Quote:
The thought is taboo, the Revolution being still sacred in its self-directed propaganda.
But my use of the term isn't quite so nefarious as you deem it. I use it as defined by Hofstadter
Quote:
By myth I do not mean an idea that is simply false, but rather one that so effectively embodies men’s values that it profoundly influences their way of perceiving reality and hence their behavior.
Such stories aren't history. They have a social function which is why all sorts of events and persons are completely forgotten but other portraits gain broad distribution and a lasting grasp on the psyche of a group or nation.
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:54 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
there's an interesting geographical difference
No question. There's a good reason so many of us live as far south as possible. And Australia and New Zealand aren't identical to Canada but it is the case that they are more similar to each other than any is to the US in the characteristics Gopnik is speaking of. So geography plays a role but it's not definitive, it seems to me.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 07:58 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
From the very start they sought to create new societies free of the flaws of the Old World, and the intolerance and prejudices of England in particular.


And started one of the world's largest genocides. And all you folks have admirably lived up to their high standards.
camlok
 
  0  
Fri 26 May, 2017 08:00 pm
@snood,
Stupid is part and parcel of being American, Snood. Nobody could ever believe the phantasmagorical propaganda that Americans do and be considered sane.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 08:14 pm
@camlok,
Somebody was asking what "eurotrash" is. This guy.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 26 May, 2017 08:28 pm
@georgeob
Well that was weird. I somehow caused your post to evaporate and my reply ended up in that spot. Sorry. But I have been told before that I have magic fingers.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:10 pm
The final graphs from Elizabeth Drew's piece (linked above)
Quote:
Politicians are pragmatists. Republican leaders urged Nixon to leave office rather than have to vote on his impeachment. Similarly, it’s possible that when Trump becomes too politically expensive for them, the current Republicans might be ready to dump him by one means or another. But the Republicans of today are quite different from those in the early 1970s: there are few moderates now and the party is the prisoner of conservative forces that didn’t exist in Nixon’s day.

Trump, like Nixon, depends on the strength of his core supporters, but unlike Nixon, he can also make use of social media, Fox News, and friendly talk shows to keep them loyal. Cracking Trump’s base could be a lot harder than watching Nixon’s diminish as he appeared increasingly like a cornered rat, perspiring as he tried to talk his way out of trouble (“I am not a crook”) or firing his most loyal aides as if that would fix the situation. Moreover, Trump is, for all his deep flaws, in some ways a cannier politician than Nixon; he knows how to lie to his people to keep them behind him.

The critical question is: When, or will, Trump’s voters realize that he isn’t delivering on his promises, that his health care and tax proposals will help the wealthy at their expense, that he isn’t producing the jobs he claims? His proposed budget would slash numerous domestic programs, such as food stamps, that his supporters have relied on heavily. (One wonders if he’s aware of this part of his constituency.)

People can have a hard time recognizing that they’ve been conned. And Trump is skilled at flimflam, creating illusions. But how long can he keep blaming his failures to deliver on others—Democrats, the “dishonest media,” the Washington “swamp”? None of this is knowable yet. What is knowable is that an increasingly agitated Donald Trump’s hold on the presidency is beginning to slip.
In important ways, the precedent political figure to Trump isn't Nixon, it's Sarah Palin. Certainly that's true as regards the bizarre extremity of loyalty for both characters by many in the GOP base regardless of the obvious unsuitability of either (Palin didn't know there were two Koreas).

Surely one key reason for the modern GOP base imagining either might be suitable for the office is the constant stream of right wing rhetoric over decades that politicians are morons or ivory tower elitists or pigs at the trough and that anyone could do the political job and probably do it better.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:16 pm
@snood,
It's like a bad dream and you can't wake up. Apparently his supporters are sheep.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:33 pm
@blatham,
I'm not familiar with Schmidt, Wilson or Sykes, and of the remaining three the only one I read with regularity is Charen. Gerson is pure Establishment Republican and Jennifer Rubin has gone off the deep end.

I just returned from a week in London and didn't have a lot of time to visit the websites I usually peruse for news of the day so I don't know that I'm up on all the details of the Gianforte story, but from what I have read it doesn't seem to be a case of media exaggeration. It was a very bizarre and possibly criminal act, however I haven't read or seen anyone applauding the man's behavior, and certainly not Trump. Unless I missed some "atta boy" comment by Trump, focusing on him in relation to the incident seems far fetched to me, and much of the comments you've cited exaggerate his impact on the GOP and certainly the "conservative movement."

BTW - Most of the people I spoke with in London don't have a very high opinion of Trump. Liberals think he's dangerous and conservatives think he's a buffoon. (The driver who picked me up at the airport however thinks Americans picked just the right guy when they elected Trump because he's a businessman). When asked why they think he's dangerous or a laughable, there was very little specificity in their responses, and it's pretty clear that most of them are reacting to an image of the man rather than anything he's actually done.

As well, few knew that their government is meeting it's NATO obligation relative to defense spending, but even when assuming it isn't, don't see a problem with it.

The newspapers focused on his lecturing NATO members for not paying their fair share (bad form!) Macron's use of an attack handshake on him, and the leaks of information UK security forces had shared with their American counterparts. This last topic is one that was quite embarrassing for me as an American, and reveals how large a problem this has become. It's as if government employees in every department and area have all joined in on a fad: Tell the press any juicy tidbit you have no matter how sensitive the information or what damage the leaks might cause. The UK media presented the topic in terms of May telling off Trump, but, obviously, Trump is as pissed off about the leaks as May is. Hopefully this one will be the catalyst for a much needed DOJ investigation that see people fired from their jobs or prosecuted.



snood
 
  4  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:39 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

It's like a bad dream and you can't wake up. Apparently his supporters are sheep.

Nah, sheep is way too benificent an appellation for these people who, with eyes wide open, handed this pestilence the reins of federal government... AND who continue - with evidence of 45's bottomless twistedness piling high - to support, defend and enable. 'Sheep' connotes a sort of innocent mindlessness that's easily led about. No, I think we are dealing with people who are, in the best case scenario, operating inside some kind of weird, willful cognitive dissonance they have to keep erected so that they can call wrong right, a lie the truth, and evil good. I'll NEVER believe they can't see the piece of crap this administration is.
layman
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I haven't read or seen anyone applauding the man's behavior


Not saying I "applaud" it, but I defend the guy's action. I think that, legally, he has every right to eject an unwelcome, uninvited intruder from his private office using whatever force might be required. On the audio tape of the incident, he repeatedly tells the guy to "get the hell out of here," which seems to have been his primary goal. It's not like he's trying to detain him so he can beat his ass.

The arrogant press often seems to think that they can violate YOUR rights at will, with impunity and with immunity from consequence.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Fri 26 May, 2017 09:53 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
I haven't read or seen anyone applauding the man's behavior


Not saying I "applaud" it, but I defend the guy's action. I think that, legally, he has every right to eject an unwelcome, uninvited intruder from his private office using whatever force might be required. On the audio tape of the incident, he repeatedly tells the guy to "get the hell out of here," which seems to have been his primary goal. It's not like he's trying to detain him so he can beat his ass.


Can't agree with you on this one. I've little doubt that the reporter was being obnoxious, and I'm sure many an obnoxious media twit deserves a sock on the snoot, but body slamming him and punching him (as two FOX reporters who witnessed the incident claim) is not an appropriate response to someone not heeding a demand to leave one's office and I doubt it will be found to be legal either.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.43 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 06:03:59