I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

But it is a bit surprising that Trump retains 96% of his voters, even after displaying what a freak show he is and breaking pretty much every one of his campaign promises? So. Much. Winning.

Yeah, I find this surprising. Having talked to a few of them, including a couple I thought of as friends, I'm increasingly coming to believe that they mostly just hate people like me and the more I point out Trump's hypocrisy the less they care.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do I automatically have a conflict of interest forever with everyone I have ever received payment from, for myself, for a charity, for my law firm, or otherwise?

We're poorly placed to understand this, because we get fees from people that might not look politically astute all the time.

But the optics are bad in a post-financial crisis world in which nearly everyone thinks Wall Street fucked up big time, if they aren't all outright crooks. Granted, it was basically SOP that Bernie (and then Trump and the right).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This can't be right... You can just draw $$$ out of your corp or LLC at 15% under the Trump plan?

I had to have misheard that.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This can't be right... You can just draw $$$ out of your corp or LLC at 15% under the Trump plan?

I had to have misheard that.

I guess that solves the problem of carried interest.

It won't happen, in any case.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

http://abc13.com/politics/96-percent...again/1906546/

Vote again?
Among Americans who say they voted in the 2016 election, 46 percent say they voted for Hillary Clinton and 43 percent for Trump, very close to the 2-point margin in the actual popular vote results. However, while Trump would retain almost all of his support if the election were held again today (96 percent), fewer of Clinton's supporters say they'd stick with her (85 percent), producing a 40-43 percent Clinton-Trump result in this hypothetical re-do among self-reported 2016 voters.

That's not because former Clinton supporters would now back Trump; only 2 percent of them say they'd do so, similar to the 1 percent of Trump voters who say they'd switch to Clinton. Instead, they're more apt to say they'd vote for a third-party candidate or wouldn't vote.

In a cautionary note to her party, Clinton's 6-point drop in a hypothetical mulligan election relates to views of whether the Democratic Party is in touch with peoples' concerns. Although the sample sizes are small, those who say the party is out of touch are less likely to say they'd support Clinton again, compared with those who see it as in touch.

Still, there's no strong evidence that defectors primarily come from groups that favored Bernie Sanders in the primary. There are no broad differences by age, and liberals are 9 points more likely than moderates and conservatives to stick with Clinton. Similarly, nonwhites are 10 points more likely than whites to say they would not support Clinton again, with more than a third of them heading to the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson.




I think that the Democratic Party Chair crapping all over the 20% or so of Dems who do identify as pro-life was before the poll. So the number of Dems who think the party is out of touch may have increased a bit.

Pro life is not "in touch." It is fringe. That tent covers more loons than moderates.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I guess that solves the problem of carried interest.

It won't happen, in any case.

Agreed, but if it could happen... That'd be pretty, uh... near orgasmic?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This. And now the whole party. Bernie raises some issues that the Dems should embrace (and Hillary did, at least nominally).

But they've got to get away from Bernie the man, who is toxic, selfish and incompetent. He isn't the way forward.

Genuineness is a strong brand against which to compete. He's still the only one of the three I'd leave alone around the good silverware.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So let's see what is funded in the budget bill: Planned Parenthood, the Iran deal, refugee resettlement, sanctuary cities, Obamacare subsidies.

Defunded: Border wall.

Sessions DOJ defending Obamacare contraceptive mandate.

And *still* the polling shows that if the election were held today, Trump would win. I have to admit though, Evan McMullin turned out to be an embarrassment. If I had it to do all over again, I would just write in someone I randomly selected on election day.

I'm not convinced by any means, but did I not predict he'd wind up closer to moderate than most expected?

But let's not discount the crazy part of him... We are fucking with NK or no good reason. That could end less than happily.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Genuineness is a strong brand against which to compete.

I'll grant you that he benefits from the perception of genuineness, but his actions tend to undermine the case for it being real. Bernie wants first and foremost to promote Bernie. Progress be damned.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

We're poorly placed to understand this, because we get fees from people that might not look politically astute all the time.

But the optics are bad in a post-financial crisis world in which nearly everyone thinks Wall Street fucked up big time, if they aren't all outright crooks. Granted, it was basically SOP that Bernie (and then Trump and the right).

Many years ago, I ran for democratic national committee. My opponent charged that I was dirtied because I worked at a big law firm that had a lobbying practice. No one bought it, and it did not become an issue, and he dropped it.

For stuff this thin to have traction, you have to have an electorate and media that is already predisposed against the candidate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not convinced by any means, but did I not predict he'd wind up closer to moderate than most expected?

He's completely incompetent and uninformed, and malleable to a frightening degree. That's not moderate. That's susceptible to some influence by the massive ship of state.

Better than the worst case scenario, but that malleable thing can be used for evil too.

We are fucking with NK or no good reason. That could end less than happily.

His people love this too. None of this pussy diplomacy bullshit. Finally, a president with balls!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed, but if it could happen... That'd be pretty, uh... near orgasmic?

Yeah, until the economy stalls and you stop making money for the government to tax.

You knew at the end of the day he'd have the same solution every real estate developer ever has had: stop using your own money, borrow it, spend like a banshee on something glitzy (fireworks over North Korea!) and stick a bunch in your own pocket one way or another, and then when it all goes to hell let the lenders foreclose, the buildings disintegrate, the neighborhood go to pot, and move on to the next property.

Real estate. The world's oldest scam.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh Bullshit.

If this is corruption, everything anyone does for money before, after or during being President is corruption. What are your rules for what a past president or a presidential hopeful is supposed to do? What would you say would not be "corruption". Here are some specific questions:

1. Should they take speaking fees?
2. Should they take fees for media appearances (e.g., Fox, CNN, MSNBC)?
3. Should they take professional (legal, accounting) fees?
4. Should they take other consulting fees?
5. Should they take royalties?
6. Should they take rent payments?
7. Should they sell real estate?
8. Should they own stock?
9. Should they own media interests?
10. Should they own a peanut farm and sell peanuts?
11. Should they take fees for entertainment (acting, porn, prostitution)?

Is it only democrats who can't do anything but serve in public office? Or can Republicans do all of the above but not democrats because their base doesn't care?

They didn't break a rule or law, but it is a very mild form of corruption. You can't take that much money and fail to arouse suspicions that there's a quid pro quo. If I were a former President and had a $65 million deal for my memoirs, and Cantor Fitzgerald offered me $400K for a speech, I'd do the speech and make sure the money went to a good cause.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

In retrospect, Hillary should not have been as nice as she was to Bernie.

She should have pushed to have him disclose his taxes and finances to the same degree as hers, including the pay-off his wife got after running a school into the ground, and should have defended the Foundation from daybreak to sunset: when did he do anything to actually provide drugs to aids patients?

Trump hurt her much more with the appearance of corruption than Bernie did.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

From the left, it's having anything to do with banks that's disqualifying.

If Boeing or McKesson or Google were offering the money, I'd say the same thing.

eta: also, what Josh Barro says.