US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6341

On November 30 2016 10:30 LegalLord wrote:
Other nations using US tech tend to be left with expensive stuff they can't really fight a real war with because they can't afford enough of it though.

On November 30 2016 10:30 LegalLord wrote:

The US can afford to spend the equivalent of a first world nations' GDP on a Middle East vanity project, so it sort of gets by.

Other nations using US tech tend to be left with expensive stuff they can't really fight a real war with because they can't afford enough of it though.

On November 30 2016 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
So who's laughing now? #makeamericagreatagain



Source.

Now, I hope y'all don't miss that third paragraph that the NYT just couldn't help itself from inserting into the article. It's a perfect example of the bullshit media bias that we were railing against a few days ago. This should be a happy, positive story. Period.

On November 30 2016 10:12 xDaunt wrote:
So who's laughing now? #makeamericagreatagain



Source.

Now, I hope y'all don't miss that third paragraph that the NYT just couldn't help itself from inserting into the article. It's a perfect example of the bullshit media bias that we were railing against a few days ago. This should be a happy, positive story. Period.

On November 30 2016 08:09 LegalLord wrote:

Let's just say I have bigger worries over the next four years than low-level corruption and favor trading.

Mind you, I wasn't one of the "Clinton Foundation" people; my critique of her focused more on trade and foreign policy.

Ultimately, Clinton settled on a scheme the campaign named the “New College Compact.” The goal, making public college debt-free, was simple. The mechanics were not. Families would pay “realistic” fees based on income, with poorer families paying nothing at all. Students would contribute directly through work-study programs. Washington would provide most of the money, but states would have to kick in some funds and hold the line on tuition increases. The feds would also crack down on for-profit colleges where too many students were getting substandard degrees and defaulting on their loans. All in all, the proposal would require some $350 billion in new spending over 10 years, which Clinton planned to pay for by raising taxes on the rich. James Kvaal, a former Obama administration adviser who consulted on the initiative, described it in an email as “a once-in-a-century change in the relationship between the federal government and colleges, on par with the Morrill Act (which created land grant colleges in the 19th Century) and the G.I. Bill.”

A few days before Clinton’s speech, O’Leary convened a final conference call to discuss media strategy. Anticipating a lot of attention, she instructed the team to be ready by the phones. Clinton delivered her address at a high school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and afterward, held a press conference in the gym. She got just one query about the plan. Earlier that week, Trump had described Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly as having “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” during a debate, and so Clinton was grilled on whether Trump should apologize to Kelly, whether he had a problem with women, and what Clinton thought of the fact that Trump had retweeted someone who called Kelly a bimbo.

Over the next 24 hours, the tuition plan received only perfunctory coverage. “The calls just never came,” recalls Gene Sperling, another one of Clinton’s advisers. “It was all Kelly-Trump, 24/7.” Even many professional policy types didn’t grasp the full scope of her proposal; I didn’t realize it myself until I began researching this article. As primary season wore on, her scheme was overshadowed by a bolder, shinier promise from Senator Bernie Sanders: free public college for everyone.

The episode was typical of how this election has unfolded. Clinton’s policy operation has churned out more than 60 papers outlining plans for everything from housing for people with serious mental illness to adjusting the cap on loans from the Small Business Administration. The agenda includes extremely big items, like a promise to ensure no family pays more than 10 percent of income on child care, and extremely small ones, like investing in smartphone applications that would make it easier for military families living in remote locations to receive services available only on bases.

On November 30 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Courtesy of Samizdat, take a look at this wonderful picture.

On November 30 2016 12:39 biology]major wrote:
Isn't this a massive incentive for companies to keep jobs here? They get a spike in free publicity and the lowered corporate tax rate plus tariffs should really continue this carrier trend. He's not even in office yet and 1000 American jobs are saved. This guy is going to get shit done, all the doubters are in for a fun 4 years.

On November 30 2016 12:50 GreenHorizons wrote:


If he was really smart he'd have promised them tax breaks he has no intention on delivering. Then let Republicans argue for a tax break there's no hard evidence he ever offered them while he just takes the side of the workers.

Trump built his fortune by promising things he had no intention on delivering in ways that worked out to his benefit, of the facets I don't expect to change about Trump that's at the top of my list. Like I said a while ago, the way to get the best Trump is to make the countries success, his success, and making the countries failures his failures.

That said, I prefer Bernie's plan.