Who will liberals blame if Trump wins the election.

[Vic]

"No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the record for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." - H. L. Mencken

Liberalism's fault is that it over estimates the intelligence of the people by its inherent design. This is why Liberalism's founders, in particular Thomas Jefferson, stressed the importance of universal public education as the necessary safeguard against the re-emergence of tyranny. This is why the time during which Liberalism arose is called the Age of Enlightenment. Because it takes intellectual enlightenment to understand why people allow government to exist, and why all of our rights are interconnected with each other's rights. Because once we understand why we have government, we can recognize how to control government in the most mutually beneficial manner.
Contrast this with the modern 'conservative' agenda against public education that has given rise to the cult of personality known as Trump, which preaches that intellectualism is elitism, that government should not exist except to serve one's most immediate and selfish purposes, and that one can use the force of government to strip basic rights away from certain groups of people without endangering one's own rights (a logical absurdity).
Fear sells. And the less people understand the world, the more willing they are to buy fear at any cost.

 

[glenn1]

What about him do you think is more liberal, specifically?

Abortion, universal healthcare, trade, history of past donations to Democrats including Hillary, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

 

[fskimospy]

Yes! Why do you think they are donating money? They just do that because they have good moral standards and they expect absolutely nothing in return? Do you really think shareholders would tolerate wasting money like that?

Why would the shareholders have a say? The contributions you linked to are donations from the employees of the corporation, not the corporation itself. This was noted in bold and red lettered text in your own link that you apparently did not read, haha.

Your argument is effectively that the act of donating money to a candidate is by definition corruption. Uhmm, okay.

Yes. In legal speak, this is called conflict of interest.
Can you imagine someone doing that in a courtroom? What would happen if the judge was ruling in a case where the defendant was his past and current employer as well as campaign contributor and personal friend? It would be a mistrial. We have laws against this for a reason.

The president is not a judge that is expected to be an impartial arbiter between two adversarial groups and whose veneer of impartiality is central to the position. This is a bad analogy.

If Hillary wins the election, I'm betting everything on the banks. They will get bailout after bailout after bailout. The big banks hold billions worth of Puerto Rican bonds? Let's use federal tax money to bail out Puerto Rico so my big bank friends are not forced to take a loss on their bonds! Actually, that already happened. I think it was yesterday or the day before. The next banker bailout will be for bonds issued by Illinois.

Illinois is an awesome scam to pull. The bonds are issued at about 8% interest, but that high interest rate is due to the assumption that they will not be bailed out. If bankers know the state will be bailed out, it means the risk of those bonds is actually the same risk as US treasuries, which would be maybe 2% or less. That means the bonds are extremely mispriced. Big banks scoop them up at a huge discount, collect the interest payments, and they get paid in full when the federal government bails out the state of Illinois.

Obama got more money from the big banks than anyone in history. By your logic you should have bet everything on them, and you would have lost your shirt. Is there a lesson to be taken from that?

 

[Mxylplyx]

I think these exorbitant speaking fees walstreet pays out are akin to the shiny new sports cars they buy. It's mostly a demonstration of their own wealth and power to their peers to have such prominent people speak before them, and if that also helps them extract favors from said politician at a later date, that would be gravy. You cannot blindly claim that someone is bought and paid for simply because they have been paid by said banks for other services. Obama is a shining example. You need PROOF, and said proof is not hard to come by.

 

[fskimospy]

Abortion, universal healthcare, trade, history of past donations to Democrats including Hillary, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

How is he more liberal than Hillary on abortion?

How is he more liberal than Hillary on universal health care? He may have said some nice words about it at one point in the past, but she, you know, actually tried to implement it.

How is he more liberal than Hillary on trade? Is trade protectionism somehow a liberal trait now? If so, why are so many die hard conservatives for it?

Why would his history of donating money to the Democratic party make him more liberal than Hillary? It's very safe to assume that Hillary has raised far more money for Democrats than he ever has. (at least intentionally, haha)

All of these things seem to be ways in which Trump is/was more liberal than many REPUBLICANS, but none if it is evidence that he's more liberal than Hillary.

 

[Vic]

Abortion, universal healthcare, trade, history of past donations to Democrats including Hillary, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

Trump also supported the assault weapons ban.

 

[soundforbjt]

Abortion, universal healthcare, trade, history of past donations to Democrats including Hillary, etc.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ich-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/

Was that this week or last week? His positions change as fast as his mouth moves.

 

[dank69]

Last I checked, Hillary has never been the CEO or held a PhD+ years of experience as a consultant in any comparable industry that another speaker would be paid for these conferences.

So, what expertise do they command to be speaking in front of these industries? Gee....

You guys act as if this isn't somehow clear? Come on--I don't see any other valid candidate in this upcoming election than Hillary, but I'm not so naive to pretend this isn't the case.

Are you guys pretending that Conservative politicians also aren't paid for this type influence? Of course they are--all of these industries hedge their bets. It's a cornucopia of bribes!

Hmm, why would people pay a former President of the fucking United States, the most prestigious office in the entire world a huge speaking fee? Must be bribery, lol. Definitely not because they want him to share his secrets for success with their employees. And Hillary was just the lowly Secretary of State, psh. Doesn't take any brains to achieve something like that.

 

[IEC]

Hmm, why would people pay a former President of the fucking United States, the most prestigious office in the entire world a huge speaking fee? Must be bribery, lol. Definitely not because they want him to share his secrets for success with their employees. And Hillary was just the lowly Secretary of State, psh. Doesn't take any brains to achieve something like that.

Secret for success #1: bang all the hot (and some not) interns and lie about it.

Secret for success #2: marry a woman who will cover for you and attack said interns and their character

Secret for success #3: you scratch my back, I scratch yours (aka bribery)

 

[zinfamous]

I think these exorbitant speaking fees walstreet pays out are akin to the shiny new sports cars they buy. It's mostly a demonstration of their own wealth and power to their peers to have such prominent people speak before them, and if that also helps them extract favors from said politician at a later date, that would be gravy. You cannot blindly claim that someone is bought and paid for simply because they have been paid by said banks for other services. Obama is a shining example. You need PROOF, and said proof is not hard to come by.

I definitely think that is a large part of it--essentially harmless. But it is foolish to think that these guys aren't expecting a return on their investments. They would not be forking over that cash otherwise.

Hmm, why would people pay a former President of the fucking United States, the most prestigious office in the entire world a huge speaking fee? Must be bribery, lol. Definitely not because they want him to share his secrets for success with their employees. And Hillary was just the lowly Secretary of State, psh. Doesn't take any brains to achieve something like that.

Yes, it's not that this is some unique thing with presidents and politicians, but.....they are politicians. This is how they live. They are money churners, because they hold the reigns to generate more money.

Why would Goldman or BoA or AIG want to pay Bill shitloads of money after he was POTUS, other than simply being a POTUS to put on their wall?

Well, there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

Why is it so hard to accept that the only thing politicians have to offer these people is influence and favors? That is their job. This isn't a partisan perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

I definitely think that is a large part of it--essentially harmless. But it is foolish to think that these guys aren't expecting a return on their investments. They would not be forking over that cash otherwise.



Yes, it's not that this is some unique thing with presidents and politicians, but.....they are politicians. This is how they live. They are money churners, because they hold the reigns to generate more money.

Why would Goldman or BoA or AIG want to pay Bill shitloads of money after he was POTUS, other than simply being a POTUS to put on their wall?

Well, there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

Why is it so hard to accept that the only thing politicians have to offer these people is influence and favors? That is their job. This isn't a partisan perspective.

Do you think that experts in various fields that get big speaking fees because during that speech they are imparting their expertise to the audience? Not in the slightest. It's a speaking engagement, not a classroom.

 

[glenn1]

How is he more liberal than Hillary on abortion?

How is he more liberal than Hillary on universal health care? He may have said some nice words about it at one point in the past, but she, you know, actually tried to implement it.

How is he more liberal than Hillary on trade? Is trade protectionism somehow a liberal trait now? If so, why are so many die hard conservatives for it?

Why would his history of donating money to the Democratic party make him more liberal than Hillary? It's very safe to assume that Hillary has raised far more money for Democrats than he ever has. (at least intentionally, haha)

All of these things seem to be ways in which Trump is/was more liberal than many REPUBLICANS, but none if it is evidence that he's more liberal than Hillary.

I don't really care what degree of "liberalism" you want to call Trump. My main point was that Hillary isn't that liberal herself and would have felt right at home in the Nixon administration. Both were war hawks, pro-interventionism, extremely happy to resort to sponsoring coups to get their way, pro-big business, with a sprinkling of liberal social policies thrown in for good measure.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...liberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination

 

[fskimospy]

I don't really care what degree of "liberalism" you want to call Trump. My main point was that Hillary isn't that liberal herself and would have felt right at home in the Nixon administration. Both were war hawks, pro-interventionism, extremely happy to resort to sponsoring coups to get their way, pro-big business, with a sprinkling of liberal social policies thrown in for good measure.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandview...liberal_to_get_even_the_democratic_nomination

Her DW-NOMINATE score would disagree, putting her as one of the more liberal senators. I find objective measures like that to be a lot more useful than people's gut feelings.

 

[Jaskalas]

Not only are career contributions stupid to use in the current election cycle, especially for someone who was a Senator for years in the state where those companies are headquartered, but campaign donations are bribes now? This is very strange to hear, as Obama got a ton of money from Wall Street in 2008 and then enacted legislation that they totally hated...

Wall Street hated the bailout and trillions in loans?
News to me.

Wait, it's 2016 and you don't realize Obama is in the bag for Wall Street? You actually think he's still hope and change...
2008 called, they want their delusions back.

 

[zinfamous]

Do you think that experts in various fields that get big speaking fees because during that speech they are imparting their expertise to the audience? Not in the slightest. It's a speaking engagement, not a classroom.

what? Do you think they are paid shitloads of money to simply give an uninformative talk that is in no way expected to enrich the quality of the companies' employees or strategies going forward?

I have stepped into a weird bubble that I never thought possible.

 

[dank69]

I definitely think that is a large part of it--essentially harmless. But it is foolish to think that these guys aren't expecting a return on their investments. They would not be forking over that cash otherwise.



Yes, it's not that this is some unique thing with presidents and politicians, but.....they are politicians. This is how they live. They are money churners, because they hold the reigns to generate more money.

Why would Goldman or BoA or AIG want to pay Bill shitloads of money after he was POTUS, other than simply being a POTUS to put on their wall?

Well, there is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Legislation

Why is it so hard to accept that the only thing politicians have to offer these people is influence and favors? That is their job. This isn't a partisan perspective.

I am done. You have obviously made up your mind that there is no other possibility other than bribery. Apparently hiring famous people to speak at company functions is an investment.

 

[fskimospy]

Wall Street hated the bailout and trillions in loans?
News to me.

Bailout was Bush, not Obama.

If you want to see how much Wall Street appreciated what Obama did for them look at their 2012 contributions compared to 2008. That's what hate looks like.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bailout was Bush, not Obama.

Don't pretend Obama didn't expand / continue / champion the process. Wall Street cronyism is a bipartisan effort.

 

[Spungo]

Your argument is effectively that the act of donating money to a candidate is by definition corruption. Uhmm, okay.

Yes. This is why bribery is restricted in most countries.

Here's Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Private_funding
In 2009, the conservative party received $7.78M from private donations and $47.37M from government funding. They received more private donations than any other party, and it still only amounted to 14% of their total funding. People up there are very serious about bribery and corruption. Here, not so much.

The president is not a judge that is expected to be an impartial arbiter between two adversarial groups and whose veneer of impartiality is central to the position. This is a bad analogy.

You're saying that politicians are not expected to be unbiased and impartial when creating laws?

Obama got more money from the big banks than anyone in history. By your logic you should have bet everything on them, and you would have lost your shirt. Is there a lesson to be taken from that?

Since January 20, 2009:
JP Morgan is up 170%
Goldman Sachs is up 100%
Wells Fargo is up 180%
Even Citigroup is up 29%, and this is the most overleveraged piece of shit bank in recent history. That bank should have died.

Obama's insurance buddies are doing even better:
Humana is up 350%
United Health is up 360%

As the old saying goes - crime pays.

 

[glenn1]

Her DW-NOMINATE score would disagree, putting her as one of the more liberal senators. I find objective measures like that to be a lot more useful than people's gut feelings.

LOL, okay you can have her then. Enjoy your "liberal" president and her 2-3 wars if she wins. Hell, even when Democrats get elected they don't do much with it, Obama was the most successful since LBJ and even he only got the FUBAR'ed Obamacare. Hillary getting elected would be another big yawn.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes. This is why bribery is restricted in most countries.

Here's Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_Canada#Private_funding
In 2009, the conservative party received $7.78M from private donations and $47.37M from government funding. They received more private donations than any other party, and it still only amounted to 14% of their total funding. People up there are very serious about bribery and corruption. Here, not so much.

Well then the overall argument is irrelevant as all US politicians are bribed.

You're saying that politicians are not expected to be unbiased and impartial when creating laws?

Politicians are supposed to create the laws that they think are best, which is an inherently subjective position. This is not true for judges.

Since January 20, 2009:
JP Morgan is up 170%
Goldman Sachs is up 100%
Wells Fargo is up 180%
Even Citigroup is up 29%, and this is the most overleveraged piece of shit bank in recent history. That bank should have died.

Obama's insurance buddies are doing even better:
Humana is up 350%
United Health is up 360%

As the old saying goes - crime pays.

The S&P is up about 150% since January 20, 2009, Look at those banks, performing at index fund levels! Truly impressive demonstration of corruption, haha.

 

[zinfamous]

I am done. You have obviously made up your mind that there is no other possibility other than bribery. Apparently hiring famous people to speak at company functions is an investment.

Bribery takes many forms. I don't see it as always the direct, money-in-briefcase action so commonly associated with the most explicit corruption.

Call this "bribery light" if you must, but to me, influence is influence.

Now, I suppose we are going to get some webster's definitions that "bribery" requires x and a and r to happen! I don't care to look this up, and it's perfectly fine with me if such can not "technically" be called bribery because "specific words have specific meaning."

I've already stated that there are plenty of reasons to point out and accept that such speaking engagements are innocent. I do think it is naive, however, to assume that people in the business of accumulating and creating wealth through influence are not interested in investing their assets towards creating more wealth for themselves. It's just business.

Influence and corruption and bribery are all just eyelets on the same shoe of our benevolent oligarchy, through which we lace our chosen political face every 4 years.

 

[zinfamous]

Well then the overall argument is irrelevant as all US politicians are bribed.

I see we are in agreement.

 

[buckshot24]

Bailout was Bush, not Obama.

If you want to see how much Wall Street appreciated what Obama did for them look at their 2012 contributions compared to 2008. That's what hate looks like.

Obama would have done the bailout if the timing was different.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, okay you can have her then. Enjoy your "liberal" president and her 2-3 wars if she wins. Hell, even when Democrats get elected they don't do much with it, Obama was the most successful since LBJ and even he only got the FUBAR'ed Obamacare. Hillary getting elected would be another big yawn.

I'm just telling you that by objective, empirical evaluation what you said was wrong. As for the rest, I'm sure you will believe whatever you want to believe.