Fenxis
-
Content Count
5,021 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Fenxis
-
-
If Hillary had actually won, and then it came out she is going to prison, the FBI would have to answer why they waited till after the election to make announcements if they knew beforehand.
I love how you completely glossed over the fact that in next couple of months Trump is going to multiple trials where he could go to jail. Oh wait... these are all pro-Clinton smear jobs.
-
That's because you haven't hit the 'consequences' phase of your diversity ideal. That will come here shortly.
Canada does have one giant advantage wrt to immigration, no land borders. So we can be more selective when bring over refugee families instead of individuals, and we can bring people in at a rate that we can process. No human swarms. And with the Syrians there's a big push to partner them with existing Canadians to help them integrate faster into society and be less ghettoized.
We see that in Ottawa; the Chinese that used to run the restaurants in Chinatown all run Thai restaurants in the suburbs and most of Chinatown is run by the Vietnamese who came 20? years. Though it probably does become harder as each wave of immigration becomes more and more different. First the Europeans, then the Indians / Sikhs / Pakistanies, then Asians fleeing religious prosecution, Lebanese etc. I wouldn't say that the most recent waves of Somalis has been quite up to speed but social change does take decades -- no 4 year quick fix that everyone expects out of our politicians.
And other difference is our multiculturalism policy. While America is a "melting pot" and everyone had to conform to some ideal (that is under attack) officially Canada is a "mosaic". While I'm not going to deny there's no racial tension or no white supremacists I think the mindset is better prepared for the inevitable shift.
-
This siren call of the one who knows nothing of business.
Considering what you linked to there is probably fraud I'm guessing I know a whole lot more about business that you.
-
One interesting observation; looking back through the election most of his "strongest" attacks have actually been faults with him.
Ie: the 30,000 personal emails that Clinton deleted "because they were personal". And while there's a rationally (due to the sheer number of emails) a decent chance a non-government related but dubious email exists in there but apparently deleting emails to escape prosecution is standard practice time and time again in Trumpland..
-
Silly FBI, investigating things...cause it doesn't mean anything.
So we should ignore the racketering trial in November or the alleged rape of a 13-year old trial in December?
I don't think Clinton should get a pass but man.. Trump 50-shades of ****ed up.
I'm surprised that Kaine's and Pence's records haven't been put under the microscope because it seems like there's a 50/50 chance that whomever is elected would last the full four years.
-
I definitely believe that Trump hugely overstates his wealth but its absurd to listen to some random turd polisher who has never been in business for himself (virtually all his critics on this issue) criticize a guy who is probably a billionaire because some (x)% of his operations failed. Failure is part and parcel of actually being in business. Nothing you ever have to worry about if someone else signs your paycheck but looks kinda silly when you're throwing stones at a man actually in the arena.
... building a brand (that, ironically, he has now seriously tarnished, since the Trump name is no longer synonymous with achievement and exclusivity. It's now more closely associated with people who a luxury brand wants no part of. Oops.)
The tough thing is that Trump could be worth anywhere between 0 (over leveraged) and 10 billion and I wouldn't be surprised by either extreme. He has had some very notable failures (like Atlantic City) but I would think that he has his companies compartmentalized enough that it wouldn't affect the rest of the "empire". There's also a bunch of "Trump" properties where it's just his name licensed ... and if I recall correctly there was some bankruptcy protection settlements where Trump took less / no equity to keep the name on the door -- gotta keep that illusion going. And he's apparently pretty aggressive at getting his property values estimated down in order to lower his tax bill so that would really hurt his assets on paper. But despite all of the impresario airs he presumably still owns a ton of NY property ....
What surprised me the most was that it was already announced, before the end of the campaign, that they were going to go with the Scion brand to appeal to the "non-millionaires".
-
Its not a loophole..Its the tax code..
It's a loophole because Trump racked up the loss, Trump declared bankruptcy protection, the bank took the hit and Trump was out nothing but was able to write all off.
I understand this election is completely different but it's funny; not that long ago Romney being an "old money elitist" and only paying ~22% tax rate was one of the big issues that sunk him.
-
Wait. So your response to the reality that the Clinton's are massively corrupt is that it's the republicans fault because of deregulation?
Not really but hey... if it's Clinton's fault that Trump used a loophole to weasel out paying a billion in taxes I'll play along /s
-
And it doesn't matter how many points she can or might win by. It's the race to 270 that really counts. She will probably have 70-80 percent of the vote in California. The extra millions of votes don't mean squat.
Presumably there is some follow through advantage to the Senate / Congress if people actually want the President to follow through campaign promises.
Trump has to win the battleground states and today he announced that he is putting $10 million to fight in those states.
Which is short of the $44 million that he said he was going to personally put in - I thought the guy was made of solid gold
-
My bold prediction is Clinton wins by 15 points. I think voter turnout is going to be huge, and it's not going to be the imaginary "silent majority" that will help trump. I think Voter turnout will be way bigger in groups that Trump has been marginalizing for the last year, and those groups will vote overwhelmingly in support of Clinton, and the Polls aren't properly accounting for this. (my unscientific opinion)
Only problem is I don't think you are going to have that groundswell of support that drove up the number for Trudeau, because there are so many other votes of consequence on the day and these latest wikileaks revelations.
-
But but but..A+Super Duper rating with charity watch...
Who knew; industry self-regulation / deregulation was toothless and likely ineffective? /s Certainly not Trump and the Republicans who have pushed for that for years.
-
Speaking of Serge's favourite progressive (Michael Moore), apparently he has a new movie out. And even Fox has him on to promote it.
-
pretty sure we will build a wall
And Trump will pay for it!
-
1
-
-
Just like how Obamacare premiums wouldn't rise.
Hillary should lose the election stricktly based on the failure of the disaster that is Obama Care
Well apparently the Republicans gutted the part of Obamacare where the feds would help defray the cost of premiums rising due to risk profiles so does that put the disaster back on them? Just wondering.
-
Lot of this is because of the money. Clinton has raised more than twice the money that our future president Donald has...A lot of it from her corrupt friends..Its pay to play..
https://www.washingt...mpaign-finance/
I would say it's more Trumps lack of fundraising more than anything all that extraordinary going on from the Clinton side. But wow, it makes Canadian elections look quaint.
One of the most liberal guys I know Michael Moore writes it very eloquently on why Donald Trump will win:
Note that Moore wrote this when Trump was ridding high and I think the Dems were still slugging it out
1. Brexit: when this was written there was a fresh coat of paint on Brexit. Since then it's been a pretty big disaster for England -- all of the Brexit leaders immediately walked away/quit, and most of the banks are drawing up plans to move to the Continent, stocks are down and the pound is down around ~15-20%. And that's the upside as everyone is in limbo. Meanwhile we have Brussels blocking a Free Trade agreement with Canada (because they are angry and French) and will likely do something for England.
2. Last Stand of the Angry White Man: So deplorables?
3/4. Yup... I wonder how many people who voted Clinton early on the primaries because she was "more electable" are regretting their decision. Fortunately Trump has shown that he's just as unlikable/corrupt
5. tldr; he's calling some of the people who vote for Trump idiots. I really don't think this is the strongest endorsement I have read for Trump.
I think it does a great job of showing why people would vote for Trump but not the opposite (which is fairly understandable since Moore was strongly pro-Sanders). While Trump has done a decent job enough job attracting non-traditional voters (and if didn't have all the baggage and a narcissistic need to always be right and drag out issues) people have jumped ship. But now with the latest wikileaks who knows where everyone ends up.
-
Get used to more stories like these from leftist sources like Huffpost
The media has been in the Dem camp for the whole election, now they will need to at least throw a few bones to reality or even they will not be able too look in the mirror.
Of course if Hillary wins the news will suddenly find so many stories that are bad for Hillary, stories they've sat on. Going to suck to find out America actually elected Kaine.
Of course Trump is still going to win.
And just a couple of stories down there's a Huffpo article linking to:
http://www.telegraph...-donor-fundrai/
For a man that's whole shtick is he so rich he doesn't need other people's money so he will be incorruptible doesn't fly.
I think the amount of money that it takes to run for office these days is silly... Citizen's United needs to be reversed asap.
-
Funny moment ... just looking back at page 2/3 of this thread looking at what people thought of Trump's chances at the start.
-
tldr: the amount of double standards in this election blows my mind (not a fan of this rants focus on Clinton's gender, though that doesn't help).
http://www.dailykos....-have-ever-seen
3) Money — OK let’s talk about her money. Hillary has a lot of it. And she has earned most of it through well-paid speaking fees. And the idea of getting paid $200,000 or more for a single speech seems so ludicrous to many people that they assume that it simply must be some form of bribery. But the truth is that there is a large, well-established and extremely lucrative industry for speaking and appearance fees. And within that industry many celebrities, sports stars, business leaders and former politicians get paid very well. At her most popular for example, Paris Hilton was being paid as much as $750,000 just to make an appearance. Kylie Jenner was once paid over $100,000 to go to her own birthday party, and to this day Vanilla Ice gets $15,000 simply to show up with his hat turned sideways.
And let’s talk about the more cerebral cousin of the appearance agreement, which is the speaking engagement. Is $200k really that unusual? In fact “All American Speakers”, the agency that represents Clinton, currently represents 135 people whose MINIMUM speaking fee is $200,000. Some of the luminaries that get paid this much include: Guy Fieri, Ang Lee, Carla Delevingne, Chelsea Handler, Elon Musk, Mehmet Oz, Michael Phelps, Nate Berkus, and “Larry the Cable Guy”. And no that last one is not a joke. And if you drop the speaking fee to $100k, the number of people they represent jumps to over 500. At $50,000 the number jumps to over 1,200. And All American Speakers are obviously not the only agency that represents speakers. So there are in fact thousands of people getting paid this kind of money to give a speech.
For millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, the very idea that someone can make $100,000 or more for just giving a speech or hanging out at a Vegas nightclub is obscene. But as Richard Nixon used to say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hillary didn’t invent the speaking engagement industry, and she isn’t anywhere near the first person to make a lot of money from it. And while her fees are in the upper range of what speakers make, neither they nor the total amount of money she has made are unusual. It’s just unusual FOR A WOMAN.
And yes, I’m back on that, because I feel compelled to point out that before he ran for President in 2007, Rudy Giuliani was making about $700,000 a month in speaking fees with an average of $270k per speech. It’s estimated that in the 5 years before his run he earned as much as $40 million in speaking fees. Nobody cared, no accusations of impropriety were made, and there was almost no media interest. So why did Giuliani get a pass, while Hillary stands accused of inherent corruption for making less money doing the same thing?
And speaking of corruption, after leaving the Florida governor’s office Jeb Bush made millions of dollars in paid speeches. This includes large sums he collected from a South Korean metals company that reaped over a BILLION dollars in contracts from his brother’s presidential administration. Speaking to an Indian newspaper about this type of thing Bush said, “This is the life of being the brother of the president.” Do you remember reading all about that while Jeb was running for President? I didn’t think so. Jeb got a pass too.
So if this discussion is really about money in politics that’s fine. But I’m going to need someone to explain to me why we only seem to focus on it when the person making the money has a vagina.
4) Wall Street — First things first. No, the majority of the money Clinton has made from speaking fees did not come from Wall Street. In fact it’s not even close. She has given nearly 100 paid speeches since leaving the State Dept., and only 8 were to “Wall Street” banks. Nearly all of her speeches were to organizations like American Camping Association, Ebay, Cisco, Xerox, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, United Fresh Produce Association, International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association, California Medial Association, A&E Television Networks, Massachusetts Conference for Women, U.S. Green Building Council, National Association of Realtors, American Society of Travel Agents, Gap, National Association of Convenience Stores, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, etc.
Corporations and Associations pay large fees for important speakers all of the time. And Hillary got booked fairly often because she is interesting and popular, and because there’s a great deal of status attached to having her speak at an event. Ignoring all of this however, a large contingent of anti-Hillary people continue to insist that all speaker’s fees from Wall Street banks were bribes, and that because of this they “own” her. But by that logic shouldn’t we all be asking what the **** the American Camping Association is up to?
Also, with the possible exception of one speech given to Deutsche Bank, all of Hillary’s 8 speeches to Wall Street were for a speaking fee of $225,000. That does not even break the top 20 of her highest paid speeches. For example she received over $275,000 each in three speeches she gave to The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, and Canada 2020. So apparently Canadians also “own” her. And I don’t know what those nefarious Canadians are up to, but it probably has something to do with goddamn poutine. Which would really piss me off except I just remembered that I kind of like poutine so never mind.
Listen, does Wall Street have influence with Hillary? Grow up, of course they do. Wall Street is one of the key engines of the American economy, and as such has enormous influence with everyone. EVERYONE. Don’t kid yourself on that point. And aside from anything else, she was a 2-term Senator of New York, and this made Wall Street an important corporate member of her constituency. The issue is not influence. The issue is whether or not paid speeches and campaign donations alone are proof of corruption. And they’re not. And the last time I checked there was an important difference between association and guilt, between proof and slander.
And again: why is Hillary being held to a standard that never appears to be applied to her male counterparts? Am I not supposed to notice that a media frenzy has been aimed at Hillary Clinton for accepting speaking fees of $225,000 while Donald Trump has been paid $1.5 MILLION on numerous occasions with hardly a word said about it? Am I supposed to not notice that we are now in an election season in which Donald Trump, a proud scam artist whose involvement in “Trump University” alone is being defined by the New York Attorney General as “straight-up fraud”, is regularly calling Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary” and getting away with it?
What the actual **** is going on here? What’s going on is what we all know, but mostly don’t want to admit: presidential campaigns favor men, and the men who campaign in them are rewarded for those traits perceived as being “manly” - physical size, charisma, forceful personality, assertiveness, boldness and volume. Women who evince those same traits however are usually punished rather than rewarded, and a lot of the negativity aimed at Hillary over the years, especially when she is seeking office, has been due to these underlying biases. There is simply no question that Hillary has for years been on the business end of an unrelenting double standard. And her battle with societal sexism isn’t going to stop because of her success anymore than Obama’s battle with racism stopped once he was elected. These are generational issues, and we are who we are.
And actually, this only makes her victory all the more amazing. And maybe it’s OK if we pause for a moment from the accusations and paranoia and just acknowledge her enormous accomplishments. In the entire history of our nation, only 6 Presidents have also served as Secretary of State. Only 3 have served both as Secretary of State and in Congress. By any objective measure Hillary Clinton is not just the most qualified candidate this season, she’s one of the most qualified people to ever seek the office. The New York Times in endorsing her stated that, “voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in history.” Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg stated that, “she is probably the best qualified presidential candidate ever.” Even Marco Rubio, one-time choice of the GOP establishment (and tea-party love-child) stated in a Republican debate that, “If this is a resume contest, Hillary Clinton is going to be the new President of the United States.”
-
1
-
-
BG stating wild conspiracy theory as fact is just standard operating procedure around here
And sadly also for Trump, who had a decent early Brexit style campaign, seems to have hooked his wagon to the alt-right conspiracy theorists. The only way he can be considered less of a liar than Clinton (maybe) if you exclude all of the shit that he gets wrong (like Obama founded ISIS even though he was only a Senator at the time) because he just makes stuff up on the spot. Oh I guess all of the "I never said that" even though we have the tweets / video tape.
A few pages back there was a whole bunch of stuff about Haiti... still have a browser tab open to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/mike-pence/pence-wrong-haiti-contracts-steered-clinton-friend/
Pence said that State Department officials steered Haiti relief contracts to friends of the Clintons. That charge rests on a news report based on emails between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.
Those emails show only that well-connected people saw their offers of help put on a fast track. Neither the emails nor a search of government contract databases show that the government gave contracts to any of those people or their firms to help in Haiti.
--
Also I love how Trump (at the Al Smith dinner) labels Clinton for "hating Christians" as there was an email where someone complained about politicians who fake being religious and hooking into the evangelical vote (ie: Donald Trump), who only "stopped" being a birther because he thought he could pin it on Clinton, never apologized for insisting that Obama is Muslim, has never apologized to Obama's priest for calling him a fake and called the actual Pope "disgraceful" and "a pawn of the Mexican government" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/18/donald-trump-pope-francis-christian-wall-mexico-border. I guess he doesn't hate all Catholics, only "Roman" Catholics -- to bad for him the Al Smith was one.
--
As much as I am happy that the 2005 tapes have put the breaks on hit campaign and raised awareness about sexual assault/ etc it's a shame it's come to this point and a shame that Trump is rebounding somewhat in the polls.
-
Wait, you mean all of this talk about making sure that there is no voter fraud is really an indirect way to the crazies to go out and intimate people to not go and vote (ie: voter suppression)?
/s (and yes I realize that the article is from the onion).
-
Brainwashed. Plain and simple. There's a low amount on "thinking Americans". I blame the education system in this country. Also s reason why education wasn't a talked about issue again this election. You have to keep the population stupid.
I asked her math questions and she answered them immediately but then we started asking HOW she figured them out and it was interesting. We were made to memorize our times tables. She was taught how to actually use math to figure it out quickly in her head.
I was going to make a comment about how standardized testing promotes memorization and less critical / thinking that is so necessary to function as a human. There's tons of TED talks about how our education systems are creating a new generation of people that, quite frankly, just can't think. It's a shame how much I learned about different about different decision making models, determining expected value of different outcomes, in my program at University and not High School.
And I see that in politics all the time. X is an issue so we should do Y; but I'm going to ignore the ramifications of doing Y since not 100% certain that it will backfire. Or not understanding that a particular choice maybe there isn't a right or wrong answer ... all we are doing is balancing short term versus long term costs and benefits.
-
Overall, I think a better 'next step' is Trump's plan, unless Hillary can make the push for a decisive national plan and make it stick. If so, it puts Obama into Top 5, since everyone knew that Obamacare was really the groundwork for the RED COMMIE NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN that we desperately need.
There's no doubt that the current US health care is a messy compromise between a nationalized system and not f'ing over the health insurance companies.
https://en.wikipedia...ture_per_capita
So American's pay double per capita than anyone else which, combined with the fact that many do not afford it at all, pushes that number even higher. A total ripoff and complete inefficient use of resources and perpetuates poverty. On the other hand the current system is so much more flow efficient (rather than resource efficient) and better for the rich I doubt there is a ton of interest in changing it.
And by extension if health care becomes a national concern than there will be more pressure for companies to create healthier food and people to eat it. I just don't see people overcoming their distrust of government to get there.
-
Democrats are much better than Republicans at ignoring their own morals and ethics to support each other.
So nevermind that Trump is the antithesis of absolutely everything Sanders represents we should instead support Trump because, even through he has way worse morals/ethics and most Republicans suppressed their inner opinions that the guy is batshit insane, they've grown a spine in the last month?
tldr: vote for the con artist because the Republicans realized in the last month it was a really bad idea?
-
Say what you will about Obama, he has great comedic timing. Clinton does not.
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
It's a pretty long article but a bit of a behind the scenes profile.
tldr she can kick back and be pretty sarcastic and funny. But let's be honest in this current political climate where every slip gets PR spun into a mountain it's no wonder she is a bit wooden and sticks to canned answers.
2016 Elections
in Politics, Economics and News
Posted
And Trump runs to the mike every time some half baked intelligence comes across his desk to repeat it. Seems to be hellbent on dismantling NATO, as an unwitting puppet of the Russia, and we will probably unhindered Russian Imperialism.
Nevermind that a previous Secretary of State used ****ing AOL, nevermind the 100 million emails that were deleted under Bush/Cheney.
Clinton represents everything we hate about the establishment; the only reason Trump isn't the establishment is they probably hate his guts for being a turd. But his history of bullying small business into taking 70 cents on the dollar, suing everyone who disagrees with him puts him so far beyond what we hate about the establishment it's not even funny.
A vote for Trump isn't a vote against the establishment. It's a vote against someone to has to the banks faces "we need more regulation" and vote for someone who is going to put millions of loopholes into every legislation for him to drive through when he gets back to private industry.