Support NeoGAF

[Holmes]

I think the biggest obstacle in Trump's way of getting the most delegates (and I'll refrain from saying a majority) is Kasich, actually.

 

[Suikoguy]

That's because it's a silly notion. What would Sanders really speak about that places like Goldman Sachs would want to hear about? Hillary at least had the benefit of being near a very business-friendly presidency as well as years in the Senate. Sanders probably wouldn't get a bank to bring him in just so he could yell at them for being greedy sons of bitches. He almost always declines to accept payment for speaking as is--I remember hearing he accepted a DVD-copy of The Dark Knight as payment from a University, and at times when they insist on paying him he always has the payment made to a Charity.

Did you even read the quote from CNN I made? It's something around 10% of the speeches Hillary gave were given to banks. There are some progressive companies out there that might want to have sanders speak, or i'm sure many of the colleges would pay a reasonable fee to have him.

Or maybe he doesn't, because it stinks of corruption.

I'd really love someone to expand on how it's corruption. I can't quite wrap my head around the line of thinking.

 

[Sianos]

"I'm not going to let people die on the streets. Sorry, I can't let it happen."

Rubio: "Is this the Republican party?" *grins*

IF THAT'S THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS FUCKING TRASH

What kind of sick universe do you live in where you think broadcasting "Yes it is definitely okay for people to die on the street" is a positive representation of you or your party?

the people who are dying in the streets deserve to die in the streets because they did not work hard enough

we know this must be true because the world has a cosmological constant of fairness maintained by [the christian] god

therefore anyone who is suffering deserves their suffering because the universe was designed so that only those who deserve suffering do suffer

to help the people dying in the streets is to subvert god's will

unless it is [you] or [someone you like] who is suffering: then it is the fault of minorities/punishment for the gays/part of some mysterious plan because of reasons

 

[Coriolanus]

I think the attack line on business is that the president doesn't get to declare bankruptcy and start over. You get one chance and you have to make it right.

I mean, that's not it exactly but something with that theme.

"with all the money your owners give you, you're losing. And you think you can run the country better than me? You're not even a job creator!"

like, for reals, good luck to anyone that tries to hit him with the "failed businessman" angle. They setting themselves up.

"Prove it. Release your tax records." Is all it would take to counter that. Cruz has dipped his toes in here in just the last debate, and it legit had Trump shook. Cruz just didn't jump all the way in.

Obviously, Trump isn't a complete business failure. His name is on some pretty big ass buildings for a reason. But he DOES have some pretty major business failings under his belt that a smart candidate could drag out with as much ferocity as they handle Hillary's emails. Hell, it doesn't take much creativity to tie Trump to failing Atlantic City, and that alone is countless jobs lost. Pull out the 4 bankruptcies and don't just mention them, DRAG HIM on how most of them came about by Trump jumping out of bad investments just in time to save himself.

Again: you're dealing with Trump. He'll simply state that he's richer than anyone in the room. And you better pray that that'll be enough. Cuz if he spins the jumping out of bad investments bit into knowing when to take America out of bad investments (like, say, a cruz presidency) and Make It Great Again? That will resonate.

Doubt voters give a flying fuck about the tax records.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't know what exactly a Google or whatever would get him to speak on. TBH it would probably be boring.

But people will pay like $50K for Laura Bush speech.

 

[royalan]

That's because it's a silly notion. What would Sanders really speak about that places like Goldman Sachs would want to hear about? Hillary at least had the benefit of being near a very business-friendly presidency as well as years in the Senate. Sanders probably wouldn't get a bank to bring him in just so he could yell at them for being greedy sons of bitches. He almost always declines to accept payment for speaking as is--I remember hearing he accepted a DVD-copy of The Dark Knight as payment from a University, and at times when they insist on paying him he always has the payment made to a Charity.

That's the big misunderstanding here. When it comes to corporate events, hell most events, and paying celebrities to attend them, it's often just about the NAME. Doesn't really matter what you actually talk about. It's prestige. Do you really think Goldmann Sachs (or any corporate entity of similar size) wouldn't pay major cash just to have a former First Lady/New York Senator/Secretary of State attend and speak at one of their events, even if all she talked about was what she had for lunch that day?

When all is said and done, Sanders will be in high demand on the lecture circuit if for no other reason than he's now a player on the main stage of politics. Hell, GS probably WOULD pay him to come speak at an event and talk about how they're screwing the working class over.

 

[Basileus777]

I think the biggest obstacle in Trump's way of getting the most delegates (and I'll refrain from saying a majority) is Kasich, actually.

I don't know why you're refraining from saying majority, it's very difficult to see anyone else taking a plurality. Cruz is probably still the bigger obstacle unless you think Kasich can really take the mid Atlantic states or California. In Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona Cruz is the bigger obstacle to Trump too. Kasich's appeal is narrower than Rubio's as conservatives don't like him.

 

[User 463088]

Does Trump have the know-how to make sure the delegates selected will be loyal to him? Considering he has no ground game to speak of, I can't imagine he has the people behind the scenes to manage a brokered convention.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Did you even read the quote from CNN I made? It's something around 10% of the speeches Hillary gave were given to banks. There are some progressive companies out there that might want to have sanders speak, or i'm sure many of the colleges would pay a reasonable fee to have him.

It's kind of irrelevant how much as a percentage was to Banks, when they paid her a very high amount, and she is now claiming she wants to reign them in. It's hard to believe she accepted large sums of money from Goldman and could reasonably be expected to punish them for wrong doing.

It's also a strategic move. If she continues to refuse to release transcripts the Sanders campaign can prey on peoples mistrust of Hillary. She is not considered a trustworthy candidate by most voters, and sticking to the transcripts line is a non-attack attack.

I'd really love someone to expand on how it's corruption. I can't quite wrap my head around the line of thinking.

Accepting money from the private sector in any capacity gives the idea that they are paying you for support. Someone doesn't get $500,000 in campaign donations from a place like JP Morgan without noticing, and in the same vein, corporations don't donate to campaigns for people who oppose things beneficial to them. Bernie isn't going to ever get a ton of money from Wall St, because odds are a Sanders presidency would negatively impact them.

You work for Comcast. Net Neutrality is going to impact your companies profit margins. Do you support/donate to Candidate A who supports Net Neutrality, or do you back Candidate B who opposes it? That's the very basic explanation.

 

[Holmes]

I don't know why you're refraining from saying majority, it's very difficult to see anyone else taking a plurality. Cruz is probably still the bigger obstacle unless you think Kasich can really take the mid Atlantic states or California. In Indiana, Missouri, and Arizona Cruz is the bigger obstacle to Trump too. Kasich's appeal is narrower than Rubio's as conservatives don't like him.

I see Kasich fucking over Trump in Michigan and Ohio more disastrous long term when it comes to momentum (but also delegate count) than Cruz taking Kansas and Maine. Right now Michigan and the March 15 states are sooner and Kasich can be a real cockblock for Trump.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Well, no one's campaign gets $500K from Mr Goldman Sachs. Because the contribution limit is $2,700. And that's a fictional person. Since corporations can't actually donate to candidate committees.

Employees working in the financial services sector still donated $18MM to President Obama.

 

[danm999]

Guy on CNN right now has been nailing what I've been thinking about Trump and what the GOP has not been doing: "Undercut Trump's brand."

I totally see why Rubio felt the need to go nuclear on Trump; what I don't understand is why he went the route of out-crassing him, when there are so many substantive issues he could have nailed him on.

The main thing Trump supporters say about him as a positive other than "he tells it like it is," is "he's a successful businessman," and yet nobody has really taken him to task for hi failures other than Megyn Kelly. Donald Trump has failed in business countless times. HIs stink is all over the now-doomed Atlantic City. And it's the line of attack that rattles him the most (outside of his hands).

"Trump is actually a failure whose only accomplishment is saving his own ass at the cost of countless American jobs due to his bad investments," would be a really effective attack. But nobody seems to want to go there.

The only people who've figured it out so far are Megyn Kelly and John Oliver.

 

[User 463088]

It's also possible that a person supports a candidate independent of their employer. Perhaps they prefer a candidate because of their stance on healthcare, women's rights, LGBT rights, or they prefer the color of their pant suit. To pretend that someone who works at Goldmans only supports Hillary because of these secret speeches seems a bit far fetched to me.

 

[Basileus777]

I see Kasich fucking over Trump in Michigan and Ohio more disastrous long term when it comes to momentum (but also delegate count) than Cruz taking Kansas and Maine. Right now Michigan and the March 15 states are sooner and Kasich can be a real cockblock for Trump.

Missouri is worth almost as much delegates as Ohio as is Arizona. In proportional states like North Carolina, Utah, and perhaps even Illinois Cruz is likely to be a bigger obstacle than Kasich too. All of these are coming within a few weeks. Unless Kasich can take WTA states outside of Ohio, I don't see him as more dangerous to Trump than Cruz. He'd have to threaten Trump in states like Indiana, NJ, NY, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and California.

 

[And_Gignac]

People always forget that the Bank speeches made up a very small part of her overal speech earnings:



I'm sure deep down Sanders wishes he could command that much of a speaking fee.

hahahaha, really!?

The mental gymnastics to justify ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that paints Clinton in even a slightly bad light aint cute tbh.

 

[PBY]

Damn. Everyone is shitting on Rubio. Like...viciously.

 

[royalan]

hahahaha, really!?

The mental gymnastics to justify ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that paints Clinton in even a slightly bad light aint cute tbh.

But can you address the substance of his point tho?

 

[Lothar]

Kate Bolduan is great brah. She handles every subject with levity, grace, and a hint of virtuous charm.

Yeah, I wasn't say that in a negative way. Even though it may have sounded like that. I enjoy CNN's sense of humor tonight. That's better than the bickering. And Kate is nice. She sounds like she's having fun.

 

[B-Dubs]

Damn. Everyone is shitting on Rubio. Like...viciously.

He's useless, that's why.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm jealous of her speaking fees. You know you are too. Little Marco certainly is, can barely handle a credit card.

I'm more jealous of Al Gore's Apple board seat. Made out like a bandit.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Does Trump have the know-how to make sure the delegates selected will be loyal to him? Considering he has no ground game to speak of, I can't imagine he has the people behind the scenes to manage a brokered convention.

The greatest deal maker God has ever created was born for a brokered convention. I want to be a delegate!

 

[PBY]

Pretty sure there's 0% chance that Trunp emerges as nominee in a brokered convention.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Well, no one's campaign gets $500K from Mr Goldman Sachs. Because the contribution limit is $2,700. And that's a fictional person. Since corporations can't actually donate to candidate committees.

Employees working in the financial services sector still donated $18MM to President Obama.

That's kind of obfuscating the way the system works. Yes, Corporations cannot directly contribute to candidates, but you can't expect people to believe they don't find ways to funnel tons of money into the system.

 

[Macho Madness]

The new On The Media episode about election predictions was kind of nuts.

Trump is elected, sparking unrest in the country. Everyone is upset and is united in stopping him. Lame duck congress passes a bill stripping him of all power, Obama signs it the day before inauguration. Roberts says the bill passes judicial review. The markets crash, the wall is built, Trump is impeached and President Cruz takes over.

What a terrible dream.

 

[And_Gignac]

But can you address the substance of his point tho?

Theres no substance behind someone thinking Sanders only pushes hard for the fees critic because he actually wishes that amount of money for himself, unless you want to buy into libertarian/conservative rhetoric that anyone who critics corporations only does so because deep down they are jealous of rich people.

Worrisome how some Little Underwoods are willing to use right wing talking points to attack Sanders.

 

[Holmes]

Worrisome how some Little Underwoods are willing to use right wing talking points to attack Sanders.

Har.

 

[royalan]

Theres no substance behind someone thinking Sanders only pushes hard for the fees critic because he actually wishes that amount of money for himself, unless you want to buy into libertarian/conservative rhetoric that anyone who critics corporations only does so because deep down they are jealous of rich people.

Worrisome how some Little Underwoods are willing to use right wing talking points to attack Sanders.

That's not what was said. This is what was said:

People always forget that the Bank speeches made up a very small part of her overal speech earnings:

 

[lastflowers]

That's not what was said. This is what was said:

you missed:

I'm sure deep down Sanders wishes he could command that much of a speaking fee.

 

[shinra-bansho]

That's kind of obfuscating the way the system works. Yes, Corporations cannot directly contribute to candidates, but you can't expect people to believe they don't find ways to funnel tons of money into the system.

They may. I wasn't really speaking to that insinuation.

I was noting that the contributions cited as "from JP Morgan" or Google or Harvard aren't contributions from those companies or academic institutions. But from people listing their employer on donation documents. None of whom are contributing $500K individually.

 

[BanGy.nz]

The new On The Media episode about election predictions was kind of nuts.

Trump is elected, sparking unrest in the country. Everyone is upset and is united in stopping him. Lame duck congress passes a bill stripping him of all power, Obama signs it the day before inauguration. Roberts says the bill passes judicial review. The markets crash, the wall is built, Trump is impeached and President Cruz takes over.

What a terrible dream.

Fieri 2020 will save us.

 

[lastflowers]

The new On The Media episode about election predictions was kind of nuts.

Trump is elected, sparking unrest in the country. Everyone is upset and is united in stopping him. Lame duck congress passes a bill stripping him of all power, Obama signs it the day before inauguration. Roberts says the bill passes judicial review. The markets crash, the wall is built, Trump is impeached and President Cruz takes over.

What a terrible dream.

The scenario was enrapturing.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Damn. Everyone is shitting on Rubio. Like...viciously.

Who, where? I love me some Rubio shitting.

 

[JesseEwiak]

That's kind of obfuscating the way the system works. Yes, Corporations cannot directly contribute to candidates, but you can't expect people to believe they don't find ways to funnel tons of money into the system.

Sure. There's a lot of Goldman Sachs employees who probably legitimately believe Hillary will be softer on Wall Street. But there's also probably plenty of Goldman Sachs employees who may be slightly to the right on financial laws, but socially liberal and even economically liberal on everything aside from Wall Street. Are they bad liberals because of who they work for?

I think it's one thing when a billionaire sets up a SuperPAC and pumps millions of dollars into it. But, a VP at Goldman Sachs sending Hillary 2700 bucks isn't changing her views.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Kasich performance today has to have shook Rubio the most.

 

[B-Dubs]

Put my winnings from tonight into Trump taking Florida, where he seems undervalued for whatever reason. It won't be a lot of profit, but it's something.

 

[PBY]

Kasich performance today has to have shook Rubio the most.

Cruz should have him most shook. He keeps talking about FL, and he's setting up offices there. Cruz wants to end this.

 

[PBY]

Who, where? I love me some Rubio shitting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/06/marco-rubio-gets-massacred/

Here's a taste.

 

[pigeon]

Honestly, I think Rubio is out before Florida at this point. He really is the new Jeb. When the question is not whether he will get the most delegates but whether he will get any delegates, the campaign's basically over.

 

[numble]

Pretty sure there's 0% chance that Trunp emerges as nominee in a brokered convention.

If Kasich wins Ohio and does well in Michigan, a Trump + Kasich ticket might get him enough delegates to reach a majority.

 

[Black Republican]

Honestly, I think Rubio is out before Florida at this point. He really is the new Jeb. When the question is not whether he will get the most delegates but whether he will get any delegates, the campaign's basically over.

Yea I was saying that just days ago too. Not looking good mang

 

[Plumbob]

Why would Marco drop out before the next debate? There's potential to continue destroying Trump there.

 

[PBY]

Why would Marco drop out before the next debate? There's potential to continue destroying Trump there.

If his internal polling show he's about to take a fat L, he might want to drop out before that.

 

[BoboBrazil]

There is no way Rubio drops out before Florida. He's the establishments last hope and he will be surging according to the media tomorrow if he wins Puerto Rico.

 

[Kangi]

I'm done with the Rubiocoaster. First we were scared of his GE matchups, then we saw his primary polling and started laughing at him and his "3-2-1" strategy. Then we were scared after his strong Iowa finish, then we laughed at his debate implosion and fifth place NH finish. Then we got scared of the GOP rallying behind him after SC, then he crashed on Super Tuesday and made penis jokes.

Can he just stay dead now?

 

[PBY]

I'm done with the Rubiocoaster. First we were scared of his GE matchups, then we saw his primary polling and started laughing at him and his "3-2-1" strategy. Then we were scared after his strong Iowa finish, then we laughed at his debate implosion and fifth place NH finish. Then we got scared of the GOP rallying behind him after SC, then he crashed on Super Tuesday and made penis jokes.

Can he just stay dead now?

What if he wins the debate and FL?


*frankly I think we're past the point where debates matter

 

[Kangi]

What if he wins the debate and FL?

I'd rather elect Romney and be done with it.

 

[Basileus777]

Honestly, I think Rubio is out before Florida at this point. He really is the new Jeb. When the question is not whether he will get the most delegates but whether he will get any delegates, the campaign's basically over.

It should be over, but he's not going to drop out until Florida rejects him.

 

[Suikoguy]

Sure. There's a lot of Goldman Sachs employees who probably legitimately believe Hillary will be softer on Wall Street. But there's also probably plenty of Goldman Sachs employees who may be slightly to the right on financial laws, but socially liberal and even economically liberal on everything aside from Wall Street. Are they bad liberals because of who they work for?

I think it's one thing when a billionaire sets up a SuperPAC and pumps millions of dollars into it. But, a VP at Goldman Sachs sending Hillary 2700 bucks isn't changing her views.

That pretty much sums up my view. I get frustrated every time the direct campaign donations get brought up. Those are thankfully still limited, and frustratingly require higher levels of disclosure then superpac funds. Superpac funds should require the same level of disclosure, but they don't.

I'm honestly not even sure why employment disclosure is required in the first place, as all it seems to lead to is dishonest attacks by both parties. Who I might work for, and my political views, in the imperfect world we live in, don't always match up.

In regards to the other topic; I'll agree the optics of the Wall Street Speeches are terrible, but they are not near enough to cause corruption. Frankly, the biggest issue of corruption in politics right now is post-term cushy positions. I'm less concerned about who politicians worked for before they take office, then what they do after. It's much easier to hold someone accountable for doing what you want them to do, if you can take away that cushy job than trying to hold someone accountable after they leave employment. I wish I could say I had a solution to the problem. Banning post office employment has many side effects that could prove to be quite troublesome.

 

[pigeon]

So here's my contrarian viewpoint of the day.

Let's say you are a regulator or even a legislator. You work primarily on, say, financial regulation. It's been the focus of your life for many years. You know a ton of stuff about financial regulation. You are an expert.

One day you decide to change professions. Possibly because you're unelectable, who knows. So you leave the public sector, polish up the old resume, and start looking for a position.

Guess what? Most of the positions that will be easily available and appealing to you will be in the financial sector. That is what you know about! All of your relevant experience is in financial topics. There isn't another regulatory agency or another legislative branch for you to submit an application to. It's basically either start over with a job you have no relevant experience for, become a lobbyist (which obviously everybody will complain about also), or go to work for an investment bank.

There really aren't any other options!

So how does it make sense to consider it somehow prima facie proof of corruption that, when people leave their jobs in government, they often transition to jobs in fields related to the work they used to do? What, exactly, do you want them to do instead?

 

[Black Republican]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srGlyFyghRk

Judge Jeanine going hard in the paint at Romney