The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[BlueK]

One can be opposed to all types of corporate welfare and crony capitalism that is often the cause of many bad CEO's being overpaid with the help of government favoritism or even tax money, while still being a major proponent of free market capitalism. Neither major party does very well upholding the latter, which is why I tend to vote for the only party that comes close -- the Libertarians. On this point I see ZERO difference between Trump and the Clintons. And actually, the Clintons might be better.

[Moliere]

Fair enough. However, do you not see the hypocrisy in taking such large speaking fees on one hand and then decrying the wage gap, inequality, and, most damning, tuition costs (even though colleges and Universities are payors) on the other?

The speaking fee issue has nothing to do with the wage gap. It's about her stance on the big banks, which she claims is similar to Bernies, but then she does these speaking engagements where they pay her crazy fees for her speeches. The issue is that she's being paid not for her time, but for her influence. Bernie doesn't really care what she said in the speeches, he's saying she is going to protect them because they are buying her off.

Hilary's hypocrisy on the wage gap is in full view when she makes a speech about income equality while she's wearing a $12,000 blouse or jacket or whatever it is.

Bottom line is that she's a corrupt hypocrite that has used the people to gain wealth. She's not for the people anymore than trump is for the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[imanihonjin]

How far do you want to take it. A lot, if not most world religions, have some ascetic traditions where it was felt to be less hypocritical and closer to God one should eschew all luxuries to embrace a simple life and devote all their talents to helping the suffering and less advantaged in society. Jesus seemed to promote that idea to the rich young man. Very few of us actually do that. but I don't think we have to in order to express a desire to help the poor without being a labeled a hypocrite.

We are all hypocrites. However, there is a big different in failing to carry through your own convictions and mandating that others behave in a way that your hypocritical self is not able to do.

I don't mind her, or anyone else, wanting to help the poor and falling short because of her own selfish desires. I believe we all can and should do more for those who are in true need. However, the hypocrisy becomes unpalatable to me when folks like Hillary and Bernie want to force others to be, among other things, charitable and are hypocritical in their own actions all the while.

If you believe it is immoral for CEOs to make so much, you don't need a law telling you you shouldn't and can't take $250k for a speech before you stop doing it. If you think inequality is destroying the American Dream, well then perhaps you shouldn't wear a $13k jacket while telling others how much they are destroying the lives of the poor and middle classes because the rich just keep getting richer will everyone else just gets poorer.

[imanihonjin]

The speaking fee issue has nothing to do with the wage gap. It's about her stance on the big banks, which she claims is similar to Bernies, but then she does these speaking engagements where they pay her crazy fees for her speeches. The issue is that she's being paid not for her time, but for her influence. Bernie doesn't really care what she said in the speeches, he's saying she is going to protect them because they are buying her off.

Hilary's hypocrisy on the wage gap is in full view when she makes a speech about income equality while she's wearing a $12,000 blouse or jacket or whatever it is.

Bottom line is that she's a corrupt hypocrite that has used the people to gain wealth. She's not for the people anymore than trump is for the people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure it does. The wage gap exists, in large part, because of market forces. She obviously feels she is justified in earning what the market demands for her time and influence, but clearly does not think others (i.e., CEOs) should be able to do the same.

[Eddie]

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just confused as to why it's bad for a liberal to take speaking fees and what that has to do with their level of caring for the less advantaged. Does BYU71 or anyone else care if a conservative gets paid to speak and what that person will do with the money. I may not like what the Clintons stand for politically or in other things, but I couldn't care less what someone would want to pay them to speak to their group.

I don't care what they are paid in speaking fees. I worry a little more about what the person thinks they are buying. Just a 40 minute speech? Or something more?

...Don't worry, I don't expect anything less from the left. They luxuriate in the society and all of its offerings that capitalism built and then bitch and moan about perceived inequities. It reminds me of this picture of kayakers protesting an oil rig.

Reminded me of a comment I saw after an article about mining and mineral rights. The person making the comment said something about all mining being disgusting.

I had to laugh. Really? All mining? So...are you now prepared to do away with all of the benefits that come from mining? You can begin with your computer/smart phone/tablet/whatever you used to make that comment. Not sure there would be many electronic devices without mining. In fact, I'm not sure there would be much electricity to power your devices even if you had them. Seems like most metals come from mines. And I'm not sure how we generate electricity, much less get it from the production point to the end user, without those metals.

[imanihonjin]

One can be opposed to all types of corporate welfare and crony capitalism that is often the cause of many bad CEO's being overpaid with the help of government favoritism or even tax money, while still being a major proponent of free market capitalism. Neither major party does very well upholding the latter, which is why I tend to vote for the only party that comes close -- the Libertarians. On this point I see ZERO difference between Trump and the Clintons. And actually, the Clintons might be better.

This isn't the point of pointing out the wage gap. It is simply an indictment on CEO's for nothing more than making too much money. It is outrage that someone could make 300 times the average employee of a given company, etc. It is the complaint that there is something immoral or unfair that someone can make that much money in comparison to others.

Of course someone can be opposed to crony capitalism and still being a proponent of free market capitalism. However, that isn't what Hillary and other liberals are complaining about with respect to the wage gap.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ouch.

[Commando]

Ouch.

Love it. But also, truly, we must file this under No S#t, Sherlock. You grab a Trump supporter by the ears and tell them this shit to their faces and they'll deny, minimize, etc. Much like how I imagine Hitler Youth to have done upon reports of disabled people being gassed, experimented on, etc.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Trump is a truly vile human being, in every sense of the word. Making ads against him would be the easiest job ever. So much material to work with.

[Moliere]

Sure it does. The wage gap exists, in large part, because of market forces. She obviously feels she is justified in earning what the market demands for her time and influence, but clearly does not think others (i.e., CEOs) should be able to do the same.

No, not really. Clinton doesn't get $275k per speech because that's what the market will pay. She gets it because the banks are buying her off. That's corruption, not the market.

CEOs don't get paid tons of money because of corruption (although I'm sure some are corrupt) but they get paid it because that's what the market demands. There's a big difference between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SCcoug]

Now Trump and co want to ban Hugh Hewitt ( who IMO is one of the most level headed pundits out there) from the convention. He said this on his show after Trump's judge comments and endorsement of some prominent Republican politicians and has been raising the possibility of a mutiny.

"It’s like ignoring stage-four cancer. You can’t do it, you gotta go attack it.
And right now the Republican Party is facing — the plane is headed towards the mountain after the last 72 hours.

I wanna support the nominee of the party, but I think the party ought to change the nominee. Because we’re going to get killed with this nominee.

And I have never said that. I waited until after the primary was over, I stayed Switzerland to the end, and in 72 hours, dovetailed to that.

They ought to get together and let the convention decide. And if Donald Trump pulls over a makeover in the next 4 to 5 weeks, great, they can keep him. It would be better if he had done so 5 weeks ago.”

Embedded Tweet

[SCcoug]

Worst two candidates in the modern era?

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

Since the recent excitement about Trump's bad effort at deflecting attention from his Trump U fraud case by claiming the judge can't be trusted because he has Mexican ancestry a few generations back, I've read a few pretty stupid apologetic rationalization pieces on it from some "conservative" sources. Seriously embarrassing the lengths some people will go to defend Trump when Trump ideologically isn't even a real conservative to begin with. These are the same yahoos who scream bloody murder when the left uses "identity" politics, but it's perfectly ok if Trump does it too.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Worst two candidates in the modern era?

Embedded Tweet

Glad they cleared up that people were using the negative connotation of liar/lying.

[imanihonjin]

No, not really. Clinton doesn't get $275k per speech because that's what the market will pay. She gets it because the banks are buying her off. That's corruption, not the market.

CEOs don't get paid tons of money because of corruption (although I'm sure some are corrupt) but they get paid it because that's what the market demands. There's a big difference between the two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even if your point is true, it doesn't discount what I have said. Since we are talking about whether Hillary is being hypocritical with respect to the wage gap, her subjective view/characterization is critical. How would Hillary justify the payment of the speeches? Would she say it is corruption or that she is merely receiving wages based on market demand? I would think it would be the latter.