Haha that's most of the posters on this board. Attach the poster or the source instead of the material. I like John Oliver, much better than John Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
It's the classic tactic of trying to claim someone doesn't matter or is irrelevant because you don't like their message but have absolutely no grounds to actually rebut the argument.
It's the classic tactic of trying to claim someone doesn't matter or is irrelevant because you don't like their message but have absolutely no grounds to actually rebut the argument.
I saw that last night and agree with it. He needs to release them. She needs to release her speech transcripts and the 30k+ emails as well.
obviously, because Hillary. Can't trust Hillary.
And... right back around to the conflation of false equivalency, to the casting of aspersions onto Clinton.
Did we ever demand speech transcripts from any presidential candidate in the past?
Oh, wait... this is different, obviously, because Hillary. Can't trust Hillary.
It's a great way to avoid talking about what we do know about the candidates, however. It's not rocket science to figure out that Trump is grossly unqualified to be president in every way imaginable.
I guess one must now wonder how you define relevant?
Keep your head in the sand, doesn't bother me. In the debates she talked about regulating the financial industry etc yet took what to most Americans is enormous sums of money for little 20 minute speeches from those very same financial firms. You can either learn as much about your candidates as you want or pretend these conflicts of interest don't exist and blind yourself to anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint, that's up to you.
Arguments over "false equivalency" and the like simply don't hold water. I remember Mitt Romney getting into quite a bit of trouble with the voting public over the contents of a private speech he made, these things are relevant.
Donald Trump: Trump reportedly earned $1.5 million per speech for a series of seminars in a private online learning company’s “real estate wealth expos,” Forbes reports. That was in 2006 and 2007, though. In light of recent news, his star power may be decreasing.
Yea, but their stack of innuendo is much bigger than your stack of facts.It was a private fundraiser for Mitt, a little bit different animal.
Speaking fees are one of the purest expressions of free market economics. For example-
http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-high-but-only-compared-with-other-women/
"Real Estate Wealth Expo" online pie in the sky motivational learning... Kinda like Trump U. or like Trump Baja, where he ultimately settled lawsuits from investors for undisclosed sums after it tanked-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLmI4ZFUxVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFRyYKbIITs
When it all fell down, he said he'd just leased his name for the project...
Its rather how sad Obama and his wife are going around telling people, esp young people, how voting for a 3rd party or not voting is a vote for Trump. Apart from this sense of entitlement, it also completely fear based politics. Because their own candidate is so rotten, they have turned this election into a not-Trump campaign. What a come down from all the hope and change.
It's not necessarily fear mongering. Third party candidates have close to 0% chance of winning the election in our system. The rational thing to do is to vote for the major party candidate that most closely aligns with your interests than to throw your vote away on a third party candidate and potentially help elect a major candidate who does not align with your interests at all.Its rather how sad Obama and his wife are going around telling people, esp young people, how voting for a 3rd party or not voting is a vote for Trump. Apart from this sense of entitlement, it also completely fear based politics. Because their own candidate is so rotten, they have turned this election into a not-Trump campaign. What a come down from all the hope and change.
It's not necessarily fear mongering. Third party candidates have close to 0% chance of winning the election in our system. The rational thing to do is to vote for the major party candidate that most closely aligns with your interests than to throw your vote away on a third party candidate and potentially help elect a major candidate who does not align with your interests at all.