|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 18 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 09:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 18 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. Well, the two of the four who also raised funds for Clinton's 08 run clearly didn't have anything to do with her State Department tenure. And I'm not super surprised that people who give 100 grand to Clinton have the money to give 16 million to charity, (or that people who give 16 million to the Clinton Foundation would give 100 grand to her campaign) nor that they would pick the Clinton Foundation if they're willing to bankroll her presidential campaign. In fact, if Trump's charity weren't a scam I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar overlap in his donors. Is this just someone looking at the old donor list or is there new info here? Dunno, it said #BREAKING.  By two of the four, they mean the four who have raised over $100k for Hillary 2016 so far worked in 2008. I guess they don't say how many total, but these aren't simple donors, they're people who fundraised for Clinton and lobbied for companies. It says it's "BREAKING" but there's no leak or new information posted in it at all and the article seems to imply it's just going over existing information that people aren't aware of. It's actually from public donor list comparisons (sorry I didn't check the source itself). You also neglected the rest of the article that stated there was absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo, including the fact that some of the lobbyists didn't get what they wanted. So it really does look like filthy rich people that donate to the Clinton Foundation also donate to her campaign...which still seems non-news to me. It seems like an attempt to chase that one AP story that ended up being a pile of bullcrap.
It says fundraisers, not donors, though, right - so supposedly people who raise money from others for Clinton rather than donating their own, although who knows how they differentiated.
So it's more like this: Roxie raises (/donates perhaps) a bunch of money for campaign, gets a job at Pfizer, Pfizer donates millions to Foundation, Roxie lobbies Department of State to do shit to help with overseas drug profits. I see the phrase "quid pro quo" a lot, it feels like a gotcha, like we found no notarized specific bribe. But Washington clearly stinks and this Foundation business isn't normal, as the article notes.
|
On October 18 2016 10:46 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 18 2016 09:46 oBlade wrote:On October 18 2016 09:36 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 18 2016 09:29 oBlade wrote:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-lobbyists-state-department/92285652/The nexus among private companies, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton family foundations is closer and more complex than even Donald Trump has claimed so far.
While it is widely known that some companies and foreign governments gave money to the foundations, perhaps in an effort to gain favor, one of the key parts of the puzzle hasn’t been reported: At least a dozen of those same companies lobbied the State Department, using lobbyists who doubled as major Clinton campaign fundraisers.
Those companies gave as much as $16 million to the Clinton charities. At least four of the lobbyists they hired are “Hillblazers,” the Clinton campaign’s name for supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for her current White House race. Two of the four also raised funds for Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. Well, the two of the four who also raised funds for Clinton's 08 run clearly didn't have anything to do with her State Department tenure. And I'm not super surprised that people who give 100 grand to Clinton have the money to give 16 million to charity, (or that people who give 16 million to the Clinton Foundation would give 100 grand to her campaign) nor that they would pick the Clinton Foundation if they're willing to bankroll her presidential campaign. In fact, if Trump's charity weren't a scam I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar overlap in his donors. Is this just someone looking at the old donor list or is there new info here? Dunno, it said #BREAKING. By two of the four, they mean the four who have raised over $100k for Hillary 2016 so far worked in 2008. I guess they don't say how many total, but these aren't simple donors, they're people who fundraised for Clinton and lobbied for companies. It says it's "BREAKING" but there's no leak or new information posted in it at all and the article seems to imply it's just going over existing information that people aren't aware of. It's actually from public donor list comparisons (sorry I didn't check the source itself). You also neglected the rest of the article that stated there was absolutely no evidence of quid pro quo, including the fact that some of the lobbyists didn't get what they wanted. So it really does look like filthy rich people that donate to the Clinton Foundation also donate to her campaign...which still seems non-news to me. It seems like an attempt to chase that one AP story that ended up being a pile of bullcrap. It says fundraisers, not donors, though, right - so supposedly people who raise money from others for Clinton rather than donating their own, although who knows how they differentiated. So it's more like this: Roxie raises (/donates perhaps) a bunch of money for campaign, gets a job at Pfizer, Pfizer donates millions to Foundation, Roxie lobbies Department of State to do shit to help with overseas drug profits. I see the phrase "quid pro quo" a lot, it feels like a gotcha, like we found no notarized specific bribe. But Washington clearly stinks and this Foundation business isn't normal, as the article notes.
Ah, okay. I was misreading it. But the gotcha here seems to be less "fundraisers became lobbyists" and more "companies lobbying donated" which we already knew. And the former is unsurprising, as anyone capable of raising 100,000 for a political candidate probably has valuable skills as a lobbyist (since fundraising is basically lobbying for a campaign, especially if you're raking in 100,000).
And again, the article notes that the Foundation is unprecedented, but it also notes there's no evidence of wrongdoing and all of the donations were completely above-board and unhidden, which makes me a lot less leery-if I was going to buy favors I would make it harder to identify from just looking at donor lists. Similarly to how Trump tried and failed miserably to hide his own buying of political favors.
|
I'm not sure claiming that Donald is vulnerable to the manipulation of a machiavellian genius such as Billy Bush is helping his case of being fit to lead a country
|
This was just nauseating and I'm not really sure why.
|
|
|
Neither is releasing people's credit card information and violating their privacy.
|
Good news people of the politics megathread! The 538 predictor graph has been updated with:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/60zA3ny.png)
More x-axis labels!
|
The top House Republican super PAC had always planned to spend big to protect GOP lawmakers in Democratic-friendly districts. But Donald Trump’s free fall is forcing American Action Network and its sister PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, to also shell out millions in red-leaning districts that weren’t even in play until this month.
Their suddenly urgent mission: Build a firewall to prevent a Democratic takeover of the House.
With Trump fending off allegations of sexual harassment and his tanking numbers threatening to pull down once-safe GOP lawmakers, this is what 2016 now looks like for the pair of related conservative outside groups: They're dropping $500,000 on TV ads in deep-red Utah to protect Rep. Mia Love, whose Mormon-heavy district has recoiled from Trump’s vulgar comments about women. They’re spending another $700,000 in Tucson, Arizona, to protect freshman Rep. Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who has comfortably led her Democratic challenger all year. And they're working to shore up conservative-leaning districts in the Central Valley of California, western Colorado, upstate New York and Michigan.
The vast majority of the groups' money is still being spent on competitive races. But the pair of groups is also now engaged in a pre-emptive attempt to stanch the bleeding caused by Trump and preserve Speaker Paul Ryan’s historically large majority. Officials say they hope to prevent Democrats from expanding their map, and allow the National Republican Congressional Committee to focus its resources on the toughest races.
“There’s certainly a challenge at the top of the ticket … so it’s prudent to look at what’s going on and make sure we have a firewall laid down to protect [lawmakers] in the event that things got to a place that were more challenging,” said Mike Shields, who leads both groups and likened their strategy to taking out an “insurance policy.” “It’s a lot of preventative maintenance … [laying] down a protective blanket over some races so that you can force the fight back into the top races where we’ve always known there’d be a real election."
Republicans always knew they’d have trouble holding on to about half of the 20 GOP-held Democratic-leaning districts that President Barack Obama carried in 2012 — Republican pickups that Democrats still to this day dismiss as a fluke. But with signs of a potential wave building for Democrats, GOP fears have grown about the map expanding well beyond those seats.
Source
|
My 10 year old son is so good with computers. It's amazing.
I hire the best people.
|
is he going for the lips?
it's so awkward
|
On October 18 2016 12:31 travis wrote:is he going for the lips? it's so awkward
Seems like it to me too. Somehow it looks even worse when not in gif form :
![[image loading]](http://c3rhdgljlmrlyxroyw5kdgf4zxntywcuy29t.g00.deathandtaxesmag.com/g00/1_TU9SRVBIRVVTMyRodHRwOi8vc3RhdGljLmRlYXRoYW5kdGF4ZXNtYWcuY29tL3VwbG9hZHMvMjAxNi8xMC90cnVtcC0xNDc2NzU0MTU5LWNvbXByZXNzZWQuanBnP2kxMGMubWFyay5pbWFnZS50eXBl_$/$/$/$/$)
Here's the video for full context :
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 18 2016 10:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 10:01 ChristianS wrote:On October 18 2016 09:25 kwizach wrote:On October 18 2016 09:14 zlefin wrote:
Lawyers splitting hairs? that would be unheard of! /sarcasm
I won't be convinced comey's wrong unless you put up a pretty strong argument, cuz he defended his case well, and he knows more about the law than you. and so far cannons details also look more thorough. Danglars is wrong. Like the first article I linked to (see point 2), this second article details why Comey was right not to recommend pursuing criminal charges against Clinton under the Espionage Act. In case anyone didn't feel like clicking that lawnewz link, the relevant section would seem to be this one, at least to my non-lawyer eye: "In 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case [on the 793(f) statute] which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in this Espionage Law was too vague and overbroad. The answer was no only because: “we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.” They go on to talk about the fairly specialized legal meaning of the term "gross negligence," which I won't bother to quote because Danglars' position already appears soundly defeated: there is a Supreme Court decision on the specific section he cites (793(f)), specifically addressing the requirements of that section, and stating that the section requires either intent, or that the defendant had reason to believe the information was to be used to the injury of the United States or to advantage some foreign nation, that is they would have to have acted in bad faith. I'm no lawyer, but unless someone can find a more recent Supreme Court case that interprets the statute more broadly, it would seem Comey got this one right. You did a fine job imo. Danglars thinks we're in a "post-constitutional" society though, so your argument will go mostly unaddressed. Here, check out what else people who say similar things believe.
Wait, aren't we?
|
Billy Bush is out after reaching a settlement with NBC.
"Billy Bush will be leaving the Today show's 9 a.m. hour, effective today," reads a memo from Today senior vp Noah Oppenheim, obtained by The Hollywood Reporter. "While he was a new member of the Today team, he was a valued colleague and longtime member of the broader NBC family. We wish him success as he goes forward."
In a statement, Bush says: "I am deeply grateful for the conversations I’ve had with my daughters, and for all of the support from family, friends and colleagues. I look forward to what lies ahead."
A source close to the negotiations says NBC did not require a non-compete agreement in Bush's settlement. He is free to take another job immediately.
The Today show host was suspended, pending further review, last Sunday, two days after hot-mic audio emerged from a 2005 Access Hollywood taping in which Donald Trump made vulgar comments about women, including then-Access Hollywood co-host Nancy O'Dell. Bush is heard laughing and egging Trump on in the conversation on the Access Hollywood bus.
Source
|
Canada8991 Posts
On October 18 2016 12:39 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 12:31 travis wrote:is he going for the lips? it's so awkward Seems like it to me too. Somehow it looks even worse when not in gif form : Here's the video for full context : + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFiXn8nhM48
Oh come on now, he is already an ass no need to demonize him like it was fox news.
|
United States10569 Posts
Is no one on here talking about the James O Keefe findings?
|
On October 18 2016 13:01 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 12:39 Nevuk wrote:On October 18 2016 12:31 travis wrote:is he going for the lips? it's so awkward Seems like it to me too. Somehow it looks even worse when not in gif form : Here's the video for full context : + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFiXn8nhM48 Oh come on now, he is already an ass no need to demonize him like it was fox news.
He's being taken to court for raping a 13 year old girl. There are valid questions to be asked about letting the man near small girls.
If I were going full equivalency I would need to demonize Trump by calling him a demon in the flesh, literally.
On October 18 2016 13:08 FlaShFTW wrote:
Is no one on here talking about the James O Keefe findings?
Until someone else verifies his findings there's zero point. Not even fox news runs his pieces before that due to just how blatantly fabricated his last few were.
|
Single authentication and accessible email from any device is pretty common? Thats what outlook 365 does.
|
Canada8991 Posts
On October 18 2016 13:12 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2016 13:01 Nakajin wrote:On October 18 2016 12:39 Nevuk wrote:On October 18 2016 12:31 travis wrote:is he going for the lips? it's so awkward Seems like it to me too. Somehow it looks even worse when not in gif form : Here's the video for full context : + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFiXn8nhM48 Oh come on now, he is already an ass no need to demonize him like it was fox news. He's being taken to court for raping a 13 year old girl. There are valid questions to be asked about letting the man near small girls. If I were going full equivalency I would need to demonize Trump by calling him a demon in the flesh, literally.
I mean he is kissing a little girl on a stage to look good for fuck sake he is not rapping her. Ya maybe he slip and kiss her a bit on the lips, it sure as hell doesn't seems like it was intentional.
Sorry but it make me super mad when I see everyone just looking around for every small detail and then jumping on it like if it was something important. Especially since Trump as said some terrible things and there is so many actual argument for him not to be president.
|
To be fair @Nakajin he just got in trouble for saying he kisses people without consent.. you just ask, can i kiss you. Not respecting a childs bodily autonomy is just a silly thing to do at this point. Sure Ive seen other politicians do the same thing as this so Im not super upset, but you would think he would have the sense to ask, might actually show he listens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
