Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
She was a private citizen and not running for anything. Unless there was absolute guarantee she planned to (which, to be fair, there may have been) there wouldn't be much point in paying hey for favors.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the average going rate for such speakers? Might give us some perspective here.
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:57:28 PM by sgamer82
Series, let me ask you something. Trump has appointed several Goldman Sachs people to positions in the White House. He's also got an Exxon CEO as Secretary of State and there are probably others I can't think of off the top of my head. Do you honestly think Clinton would have been appointing these types of people?
Goldman Sachs hires famous people all the time to give speeches. It might actually be the standard fee.
![]()
![]()
I don't know about Goldman Sachs, but I know that Nestle Switzerland had a former Swiss Federal Councillor speak once and they paid her 1 million Swiss Francs. The standard in the US is probably a lot higher for pay.
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:58:57 PM by Zendervai
Because over and over, you ignore mountains of evidence and refuse to see what's in front of your face and should be obvious. I think you're in deep denial. I can see, however, that I'm not going to convince anyone here, that no one here is going to except the facts no matter how much I evidence I provide, and that all conversations about Clinton and Democratic corruption are going in circles, so I'll drop it.
I've asked before, but is Clinton's "corruption", be it real or imagined, really relevant anymore?
She's more or less a Democratic cheerleader now, and I find it hard to believe anyone could say keeping her out of the office justifies the last fifty+ days of fustercluck under Trump. For all the cries of "Lock Her Up", nobody seems actually interested in doing so now she's currently not a threat
I've said multiple times that, to me, her corruption no longer mattered after she became the candidate. You can say whatever you want about Sanders being cheated out of his chance and all that, but after the primaries, none of it mattered, or it shouldn't have, in the face of a Trump Presidency
edited 22nd Mar '17 5:04:19 PM by sgamer82
![]()
You have constructed a brilliant mental fantasy and insist on wallowing in it, constructing mountains of accusations out of molehills of evidence and refusing all explanations that contradict your ideas. You're stuck in it because admitting you're wrong might in turn reveal how you've helped Trump and his cronies win elections. You can go off and play victim all you want, but we won't put up with it any more than we'd put up with MAGA bullcrap from an "honest" Trump supporter. So yeah, I think it's best you leave.
(We don't have the tech to ban people from specific topics. If you can't leave this one alone, however, OTC will get blocked again.)
edited 22nd Mar '17 5:06:09 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Maybe. She's definitely corrupt enough to do such a thing, but going so far as to brazenly flaunt her corruption by putting it in her cabinet might not have been her style. More likely, she'd have appointed such people to lower-profile positions in the bureaucracy and/or invited them to conference calls a lot.
Clinton and Trump are both corrupt corporate puppets (or rather, he is and she was), but she is/was more insidious and clever than him about hiding her corruption. The one advantage to Trump's corruption over and Democrat's is that he doesn't even try to hide it because he's as dumb as a brick.
Yeah, that's done for you.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Sean Spicer says there is no "Plan B" for Healthcare if Ryancare fails.
That's wicked funny. It'd be funnier if people weren't gonna get screwed. We're gonna see tomorrow if it can even make it to the Senate...
![]()
Not really; it's not like she's going to run again. But the narrative that Clinton stole the nomination continues to be essential for these alt-left wackjobs to justify acting as if they are the only true progressives. It's a manifestation of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. It has to be true or they're forced to admit that they helped elect Trump.
The sad part about this from my perspective is that it doesn't affect me — I have high-quality employer-sponsored health insurance for myself and my family. But I know people who would be screwed if this "repeal and replace" passed. Thank goodness that it probably won't, but it certainly isn't due to any Democratic efforts — other than full resistance, of course. It's entirely due to the grotesque incompetence of the Republicans.
edited 22nd Mar '17 5:19:35 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alab.) says he will vote AGAINST Ryancare.
This is one of the people I personally voted for last year. I'm feeling slightly better for voting for him.
He wants mass deportations, though. Did not know that when I voted for him. Will not vote for him again.
edited 22nd Mar '17 5:21:45 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
Allegations that themselves came from the alt-right: specifically, Breitbart and that other place. So these "progressives" are aping attack lines created by Republicans specifically to tear down Clinton's reputation with progressives, and completely unaware of the irony.
edited 22nd Mar '17 5:27:01 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Just as a note, as far as universal healthcare goes: Most first-world countries have a sort of mix of private and public care to achieve universal healthcare:
- Japan pays for, I believe 70% of everyone's fees up to a certain limit, but it’s on individuals to pay the other 3o. They've managed this by strictly limiting user fees. It also requires citizens to have personal health insurance, although it maintains an insurance fund for those who cannot afford their own.
- Italy and Spain have public hospitals anyone can use, but a system of private hospitals which require insurance.
- France requires all citizens to enroll in insurance plans supplied by a small number of national level nonprofit private insurers who deduct some fees from the paychecks. There's a national fund for those like the elderly, disabled, etc.
- Australia has a Medicare For All But Better If You Can Afford It sort of plan.
- The Netherlands uses a mandate for everyone to get insurance, with tightly regulated industries.
Single payer is not the only form for UHC. The ACA is a bit of a mix: it requires individuals to get private insurance, but maintains subsidies ideally for those too poor, and for others, included a Medicaid expansion to cover them if they were too poor. With a public option, it would lead to a form of UHC, albeit not single payer.

If there isn't a single payer covering everyone, how is it "universal"?
edited 22nd Mar '17 4:54:05 PM by SeriesOfNumbers