Law Needing Trump’s approval on merger, T-Mobile execs book rooms at his hotel.

[IGIT]

Every answer I give you seems to only confuse you more. I don't want to keep adding to it. We can agree to disagree on whatever it is we're talking about at this point.

hi TheComebackKid,

so, there's no connection with scumbaggery or corruption in Mr. Obama's deal with Netflix.

we can agree to agree, my friend.

- IGIT

 

[ultramanhyata]

hello there ultramanhyata,

don't you think that its not a coincidence that most of Mr. Clinton's most handsomely compensated speeches occurred after Mrs. Clinton announced her run for POTUS?

doesn't it seem possible that entities making those big donations to the Clinton Foundation did so with the understanding or, at worst, hope, that they'd receive favorable legislation via a Clinton Presidency?

wasn't it politically moronic to have that kind of aroma wafting around her as Mrs. Clinton assumed the mantle of frontrunner for the Democratic Party?

what's your take on this, my friend?

- IGIT

This is news to me. Bill was being paid astronomical speaking fees almost from the moment he left office. Are you saying he was paid significantly more or are you saying he was getting booked for significantly more engagements following Hillary's candidacy? And are we talking about her run in '08 or in '16 or both?

 

[Fugazy]

It's just another example of potential self-enrichment via the office.

But the people who are concerned about malfeasance already pay attention to this and the people who don't care aren't going to be swayed by another example of something that doesn't bother them.

Yeah, welcome to politics.

Everyone is dirty and no one cares unless it's the other guy.

 

[grizzard2bid]

They're gonna have to do a hell lot better than to bribe Trump with those peanuts.

OMG! They bought Trump stakes and water! BRIBERY CORRUPTION....

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Trump is transparent as hell.

Guarantee this works and he signs off on the merger.

 

[IGIT]

This is news to me. Bill was being paid astronomical speaking fees almost from the moment he left office. Are you saying he was paid significantly more or are you saying he was getting booked for significantly more engagements following Hillary's candidacy? And are we talking about her run in '08 or in '16 or both?

ahoy ultra!

my mistake, let me clarify.

i'd meant to say that Mr. Clinton's speaking fees peaked the moment his wife became Sec of State. most of his big scores occurred once his wife became a cabinet member - and some of his speaking fees came from entities who had pending business with the State Dept.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bil...etary-state/story?id=30522705&singlePage=true
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...hecking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

it's troubling, and reeks of slimyness.

idk if that is a word, slimyness.

its one of the many reasons i favored Mr. Sanders in the primary. does it mean that i, in turn, voted for Mr. Trump in the general? no, because i found the idea of a conservative SCOTUS for the next three of four decades very difficult to tolerate.

still, it speaks to the arrogance of the Clintons that they did all of this in plain sight, when they knew full well that Mrs. Clinton was going to make a run for the White House.

for all the astuteness that Mr. Clinton has shown over his long career, i'll bet he'd have wished for a mulligan on that one. in contrast to the "purity" of the Sanders campaign, it looked especially awful.

if one is going to dog Mr. Trump for his totally apparent, out-in-the-open conflict of interest issues (which are tidal in scope), then i gotta be fair and acknowledge the terribleness of the Clintons in how they managed this aspect of their careers.

- IGIT

 

[deviake]

Money doesn't influence politicians though. A war roomer made this argument to me once

 

[IGIT]

Money doesn't influence politicians though. A war roomer made this argument to me once

hi ho deviake,

i don't know. maybe.

Ted Cruz isn't going to flip flop on the 2nd amendment if a company offers him 7 figures in campaign cash.

Elizabeth Warren isn't going to suddenly vote to defund the SEC because Bank of America offers her a Brinks truck stuffed with cash.

*ponders and muses and paces*

i can't imagine having sex with a farm animal, no matter how princely the sum...but i could imagine having intimate relations with someone i felt was completely gross and hard to stomach if the price was right (think : Ann Coulter).

i guess it comes down to core principles. on those, you probably aren't going to budge, because for whatever reason, they're central to who you are.

*considers*

the thing is, outside of those core concerns, there's probably a vast array of issues that one is agnostic about, and if the price is right...

- IGIT

 

[deviake]

the thing is, outside of those core concerns, there's probably a vast array of issues that one is agnostic about, and if the price is right...

- IGIT

Exactly. I like the way you worked through the thought experiment. Add in the fact that those donations help you with job security...

...which leads to the other argument that was made, which was how much campaign money one has doesn't correlate with their likelihood of being (re)elected, something that has been shown to be empirically false (which is not to say it never happens - Occasio and Bernie being prominent examples, although Bernie suffered a media blackout which hurt him, which further makes the point). Which, even if there was no data on it, it'd be pretty common sense to realize that advertising works, and the more money one has to advertise, the better, which may have something to do with why almost every business puts money into advertising, often large amounts of it.

-deviake

 

[IGIT]

hail my friend!

...which leads to the other argument that was made, which was how much campaign money one has doesn't correlate with their likelihood of being (re)elected...

i think it does and it doesn't matter.

it certainly didn't help Eric Cantor.

it definitely hurts to not have money when you're talking to the DNC or RNC. if you announce, you'll get a call from one of their representatives shortly, and they'll outline how much you need to raise. it can be daunting. if you cant raise the cash, then you probably wont be getting help from them.

*ponders*

when i think about this kind of stuff in general, here is where i come out;

taking campaign money isn't automatically indicative of malfeasance. if you're a Senator out of NJ, then i'm pretty sure you're taking money from Merck, since its a big employer that provides good paying jobs...and as their Senator, i figure he's gonna look after their interests.

sure, Merck gave him money and he took it, but its also in his own best interests and the interests of his constituents to look after them anyway.

that being said, can money corrupt? does money cause corruption? can money sway one's mind?

aye.

its a problem. its something Elizabeth Warren is going to find out soon, too. she has her own history in carving out exemptions for medical device manufacturers that the Sander's contingent isn't going to be too happy with.

in terms of campaign money? lol. if i was running, i'd rather have alot of it. tons of it. endless reams of it.

- IGIT

 

[ElKarlo]

[QUOTE="Trotsky,


I don't really have an opinion on this. The organic development of a viable third from the two would be preferable.[/QUOTE]
True and maybe. Thing is sprint and T-MOBILE have been around for a long time and both can't challenge T and VZ with their culture that sizes.
TBH I think a lot of companies should be broken up though. I feel that they should take a part of T and VZ and make a fourth company out of that.
Plus break up most of the big banks that had(not got) to be bailed out. Wells Fargo as well needs breaking up....anyhow another can of worms

 

[deviake]

hail my friend!



i think it does and it doesn't matter.

it certainly didn't help Eric Cantor.

it definitely hurts to not have money when you're talking to the DNC or RNC. if you announce, you'll get a call from one of their representatives shortly, and they'll outline how much you need to raise. it can be daunting. if you cant raise the cash, then you probably wont be getting help from them.

*ponders*

when i think about this kind of stuff in general, here is where i come out;

taking campaign money isn't automatically indicative of malfeasance. if you're a Senator out of NJ, then i'm pretty sure you're taking money from Merck, since its a big employer that provides good paying jobs...and as their Senator, i figure he's gonna look after their interests.

sure, Merck gave him money and he took it, but its also in his own best interests and the interests of his constituents to look after them anyway.

that being said, can money corrupt? does money cause corruption? can money sway one's mind?

aye.

its a problem. its something Elizabeth Warren is going to find out soon, too. she has her own history in carving out exemptions for medical device manufacturers that the Sander's contingent isn't going to be too happy with.

in terms of campaign money? lol. if i was running, i'd rather have alot of it. tons of it. endless reams of it.

- IGIT

Well said.

That is interesting about her, I wasn't aware of this, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

I think there's info out there that tracks who gives money to politicians and how they vote, I haven't looked it up in awhile though. Now, like you said, this can be a tricky issue because the person taking money from xyz donors is probably at worst indifferent about them, so we have a chicken or egg situation. Cory Booker for example probably isn't going to take money from white nationalists nor the NRA anytime soon and it's highly unlikely any donation they made to him would affect his decisions, but pharmaceutical money is a different story.

Then you have Ajit Pai who is the head of the FCC who formerly worked for Verizon and has recently given speeches for them, who gutted Net Neutrality which benefits the telecom industry including his former employer. Then there's Dick Cheney and his ties, etc. But what do we do about that?

Before you know it lots of politicians are reliant on these large contributions more than they are to small dollar donations from average voters and you have kind of a machine in place.

That's my perspective from what I know about it anyway. It's a complex subject and an interesting discussion.

 

[Fawlty]

It's completely absurd that a president is allowed to operate a DC hotel.

 

[bobgeese]

It's completely absurd that a president is allowed to operate a DC hotel.

Except, the president doesn’t operate it.


His family runs the business.

 

[IGIT]

It's completely absurd that a president is allowed to operate a DC hotel.

hello and good morning, Fawlty,

i'd be ok if Mr. Trump owned a Motel 6 or something along those lines.

owning a pricey hotel, though, in DC?

where the toniest rooms cost between 10,000 and 20,000 per night?

*ponders*

the weird thing about all of this is that the same folks who are AOK with this, went bezerk over Mr. Clinton's and Mrs. Clinton's speaking fees and the boatloads of cash the Clinton Foundation raked in.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

Except, the president doesn’t operate it.


His family runs the business.

hi bobgeese,

i don't think Fawlty meant that Donald Trump is changing sheets and bringing up room service himself.

he probably meant that when entities frequent Trump International Hotel, Mr. Trump's cash register goes KA-CHING!

thanks for clarifying though, my friend. the hairsplitters and sophists rejoice!

- IGIT

 

[bobgeese]

hi bobgeese,

i don't think Fawlty meant that Donald Trump is changing sheets and bringing up room service himself.

he probably meant that when entities frequent Trump International Hotel, Mr. Trump's cash register goes KA-CHING!

thanks for clarifying though, my friend. the hairsplitters and sophists rejoice!

- IGIT

Are you really going to stand by the idea that billion dollar deals are bought for hotel room prices?






For a reality check, look up what it cost to get a meeting with Hillary as SOS.

Then reference the amount donated to her sham charity, with the approvals given.

You’ll find a strong correlation.


Political favors cost BIG $$$$$$$

 

[IGIT]

Are you really going to stand by the idea that billion dollar deals are bought for hotel room prices?

hail BG!

i've said the opposite, actually. i do not think that billion dollar deals swing on hotel room rates - i also said it probably doesn't hurt.

like, when the Saudis have business before the Federal Government, its probably no coincidence that their lobbyists booked a quarter million dollars worth of rooms at the President's hotel.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...rump-hotel-as-part-of-lobbying-efforts-report

that doesn't seem quite kosher to me.

For a reality check, look up what it cost to get a meeting with Hillary as SOS.

Then reference the amount donated to her sham charity, with the approvals given.

You’ll find a strong correlation.

Political favors cost BIG $$$$$$$

yes, i am with you. i've said as much myself, my friend.

i'm being consistent.

- IGIT

 

[ultramanhyata]

ahoy ultra!

my mistake, let me clarify.

i'd meant to say that Mr. Clinton's speaking fees peaked the moment his wife became Sec of State. most of his big scores occurred once his wife became a cabinet member - and some of his speaking fees came from entities who had pending business with the State Dept.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bil...etary-state/story?id=30522705&singlePage=true
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...hecking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

it's troubling, and reeks of slimyness.

idk if that is a word, slimyness.

its one of the many reasons i favored Mr. Sanders in the primary. does it mean that i, in turn, voted for Mr. Trump in the general? no, because i found the idea of a conservative SCOTUS for the next three of four decades very difficult to tolerate.

still, it speaks to the arrogance of the Clintons that they did all of this in plain sight, when they knew full well that Mrs. Clinton was going to make a run for the White House.

for all the astuteness that Mr. Clinton has shown over his long career, i'll bet he'd have wished for a mulligan on that one. in contrast to the "purity" of the Sanders campaign, it looked especially awful.

if one is going to dog Mr. Trump for his totally apparent, out-in-the-open conflict of interest issues (which are tidal in scope), then i gotta be fair and acknowledge the terribleness of the Clintons in how they managed this aspect of their careers.

- IGIT

The Clinton's were and are shameless, scum politicians of the lowest order. I came to that conclusion even before Bill finished his second term.

You will never find me defending them. Unless it's against some absurd CT like the murder of Vince Foster or Seth Rich. (Something like Bill's cocaine planes in Arkansas, on the other hand, I do not currently rule out as debunked.)

 

[IGIT]

The Clinton's were and are shameless, scum politicians of the lowest order. I came to that conclusion even before Bill finished his second term.

You will never find me defending them. Unless it's against some absurd CT like the murder of Vince Foster or Seth Rich. (Something like Bill's cocaine planes in Arkansas, on the other hand, I do not currently rule out as debunked.)

hiya ultramanhyata,

solid post matey.

- IGIT

PS - i have a little more sympathy for Mrs. Clinton, in that i see her as no more mendacious than your garden variety pol. it had to be a drag to be Hillary during the 2016 primaries. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump could thunder away and make, let's face it, some pretty out-there claims, policywise (and this is coming from a Sanders supporter).

if Mrs. Clinton had risked displaying that kind of wrath and fury, she'd have to carry the cross of being labled shrill or hysterical - a burden that male politicians are curiously immune to.