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
"Easier to control" here means "isn't dangerously unpredictable".
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.I'm pretty sure big business supported Hillary because she is a lot less likely to turn the entire country in a smoking crater.
It's a case of Evil Versus Oblivion. The apocalypse isn't good for business.
"All you Fascists bound to lose."This is the exact train of though that drove swats of voters towards Trump. The idea wouldn't be bought and the support Hillary got from the establishment meant for many people that she would do whatever they wanted her to do and Trump for being a billionaire would be above such kind of influence, meaning that Trump would be able to actually do what he says because and only listen to the will of his voters.
Which failed to account that every big business thrives on stability and their markets rely on predictable policies to account for future business projections, Hillary offered stability Trump didn't. Trump flip-flopped the economic issue and presented may proposals that could be very harmful for the US economy and since no one really knows how much of those policies he will try to follow it creates a lot of economic uncertainty.
But given how Trump just assembled a team filled with power brokers, lobbyists and corporate magnates and with some nepotism by appointing his son to a government role showed that the notion that Trump was free from the establishment to be
On the words of your then elect president: WRONG
edited 13th Nov '16 9:54:19 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent legesUsually when businesses pay extremely high fees to active politicians for pointless talks, they're paying for "access" - the chance to lobby at that person while they're thinking about the money they're making by spending that one day with that particular special interest group or corporation.
There's no law against politicians associating with businesses like this, but I think it's dishonest of their supporters to pretend that that sort of "access" isn't likely to result in a shift in that politician's decisions.
There is a little bit of truth in the idea that someone as rich as Trump would be sort of immune to that sort of lobbying. If you offer him $200 000 to give a 1-hour talk and have a nice chat at a 5-star restaurant he'll say that was his plan for the evening anyway, sans the talk and chat with the lobbyists. The $200 000 is the sort of money he might just drop while trying to get a card out of his wallet and he wouldn't bother to pick it up. Clinton is very wealthy, but not so wealthy that she wouldn't care about that sort of offer.
Of course, the other side of it is that Trump makes his money by cutting corners wherever he can and by burdening the justice system by throwing lawyers at it until everything just stops. Also, he did say he'd let his family run his businesses while he's President, rather than having a blind trust run his businesses. He said people could just trust that his children and wife wouldn't tell him anything about any potential ramifications of his political decisions to his business, so there wouldn't ever be a conflict of interest. That is simply a very transparent lie, so obvious it doesn't really even register as a lie. He absolutely means to make policy decisions of the advice of the managers of his corporations, and he essentially said as much. That is first-order corruption. There's not even any intermediary. The special interest group he seeks to favour is himself, so there's no need for bribes or highly paid, fake "advisory" roles in the companies he's helping out.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Wikileaks may be a blatant tool for Russia now, but they still leak true things (it's just misconstrued by the alt-right and carefully selected to make their worldviews shine through). The DNC was absolutely working with the media to garner Hillary support.
Whether or not the media was "right" to support her, it did nlt help her perception as a stickler for the establishment.

One of them did dox a KKK guy who taunted them I think. The way he was practically begging them means I can't feel sorry for them no matter how broadly I think the no-doxxing rule should cover people due to misuse and often accidentally getting innocents.
edited 13th Nov '16 9:13:39 AM by AlleyOop