whereas trump is one of those corporate elite who previously was making those donations to her ;-)
I seriously doubt the Donald made any money selling policy favors.
And now as you mention his wealth, I wonder what his annual earnings and assets values are worth compared to Hilliary's. Her tax returns show an increase from 500,000 annual earnings to 38,000,000.00 annual earnings since her husband left office. Somehow I doubt her secretarial pay packet can entirely account for the acquisition of assets sufficient to produce that increase in annual earnings.
I seriously doubt the Donald made any money selling policy favors.
And now as you mention his wealth, I wonder what his annual earnings and assets values are worth compared to Hilliary's. Her tax returns show an increase from 500,000 annual earnings to 38,000,000.00 annual earnings since her husband left office. Somehow I doubt her secretarial pay packet can entirely account for the acquisition of assets sufficient to produce that increase in annual earnings.
Call me cynical:cool:
and none of that has anything to do with your original comment or my reply
you keep banging on about clinton being in bed with corporate america and accepting money from them and i agree thats a bad thing
my concern is why would that make you favour trump when he isn't just in bed with corporate america he is part of that establishment himself and was also more than happy to throw his own money her way when she was up against obama for the nomination 8 years ago
call me cynical but that suggests significant amounts of selective amnesia about what trump actually represents
and none of that has anything to do with your original comment or my reply
you keep banging on about clinton being in bed with corporate america and accepting money from them and i agree thats a bad thing
my concern is why would that make you favour trump when he isn't just in bad with corporate america he is part of that establishment himself and was also more than happy to throw his own money her way when she was up against obama for the nomination 8 years ago
call me cynical but that suggests significant amounts of selective amnesia about what trump actually represents
Why is it a problem what Hillary makes on her speeches when Colin Powell gets $110K a speech?
I agree Trump is all out establishment. Just not a party insider. He didn't make political mistakes because he was never a politician.
and none of that has anything to do with your original comment or my reply
you keep banging on about clinton being in bed with corporate america and accepting money from them and i agree thats a bad thing
my concern is why would that make you favour trump when he isn't just in bed with corporate america he is part of that establishment himself and was also more than happy to throw his own money her way when she was up against obama for the nomination 8 years ago
call me cynical but that suggests significant amounts of selective amnesia about what trump actually represents
No, not selective amnesia. It's about knowing the difference between wealthy people and large international organizations that owe allegiance to no one.
Trump might be wealthy, but when all is said and done he is just a real estate developer and doesn't have the kind of money and power a company like GE wields, for example.
Multi-national corporations of that stature are a whole different animal. And, in my opinion, their political influence is the scourge of our time.
Besides, the media in the US. hate Trump, so I like him. Simple really.
No, not selective amnesia. It's about knowing the difference between wealthy people and large international organizations that owe allegiance to no one.
Trump might be wealthy, but when all is said and done he is just a real estate developer and doesn't have the kind of money and power a company like GE wields, for example.
Multi-national corporations of that stature are a whole different animal. And, in my opinion, their political influence is the scourge of our time.
Besides, the media in the US. hate Trump, so I like him. Simple really.
The media may not like Trump, but they give him lots of coverage and publicity. While basically ignoring Sanders.
I must have missed where Trump is going to break up corporations.
and none of that has anything to do with your original comment or my reply
you keep banging on about clinton being in bed with corporate america and accepting money from them and i agree thats a bad thing
my concern is why would that make you favour trump when he isn't just in bed with corporate america he is part of that establishment himself and was also more than happy to throw his own money her way when she was up against obama for the nomination 8 years ago
call me cynical but that suggests significant amounts of selective amnesia about what trump actually represents
How can you call Trump a part of the establishment? Utter drivel. The GOP establishment, the media and almost every single head-of-state are against Trump. He is most certainly NOT part of the establishment.
How can you call Trump a part of the establishment? Utter drivel. The GOP establishment, the media and almost every single head-of-state are against Trump. He is most certainly NOT part of the establishment.
He's part of the capitalist establishment, the church establishment, got his real estate funding from big banks.
The Indiana Republican polls are all over the place - this latest one has Trump ahead by 15 but one two days ago had Cruz up 16. All the others show Trump with a lead in single digits.
The media may not like Trump, but they give him lots of coverage and publicity. While basically ignoring Sanders.
I must have missed where Trump is going to break up corporations.
No one said Trump plans on breaking up "corporations".
Just to be clear though, corporations in and of themselves are not a problem. I have directed and owned a corporation myself and can assure you there is nothing inherently evil about them. Hereabouts, anyone with the rough equivalent of two hundred pounds in their pocket can incorporate their business enterprise.
However, not all corporations are created equal. In Canada, for example, 95% of all corporations are small operations that account for a combined 5% of GDP where the other 5% of corporations account for 95% of GDP.
The trouble comes from politicians who are hungry for power but very short on economic sense. They fall prey to large organizations that have amassed enough resources to have global reach. Such organizations, acting in self interest, seek to influence fiscal policy to benefit their own agendas rather than the needs of the economy as a whole.
In fact, some businesses have now amassed sufficient resources to have an unhealthy influence on society as a whole .... I think I can safely point out the U.S. media is almost wholly owned by just six count them, six mutli-national corporations. I could also point to companies like the 1910 fruit gum company that are known to have influenced the US. to unnecessary military intervention. Look up the origin of the term Banana Republic and you might just get a surprise.
No one said Trump plans on breaking up "corporations".
Just to be clear though, corporations in and of themselves are not a problem. I have directed and owned a corporation myself and can assure you there is nothing inherently evil about them. Hereabouts, anyone with the rough equivalent of two hundred pounds in their pocket can incorporate their business enterprise.
However, not all corporations are created equal. In Canada, for example, 95% of all corporations are small operations that account for a combined 5% of GDP where the other 5% of corporations account for 95% of GDP.
The trouble comes from politicians who are hungry for power but very short on economic sense. They fall prey to large organizations that have amassed enough resources to have global reach. Such organizations, acting in self interest, seek to influence fiscal policy to benefit their own agendas rather than the needs of the economy as a whole.
In fact, some businesses have now amassed sufficient resources to have an unhealthy influence on society as a whole .... I think I can safely point out the U.S. media is almost wholly owned by just six count them, six mutli-national corporations. I could also point to companies like the 1910 fruit gum company that are known to have influenced the US. to unnecessary military intervention. Look up the origin of the term Banana Republic and you might just get a surprise.
What I was commenting on is that it's Sanders who wants to break up big banks.
The Indiana Republican polls are all over the place - this latest one has Trump ahead by 15 but one two days ago had Cruz up 16. All the others show Trump with a lead in single digits.
Just imagining for one moment, President Trump meeting with Prime Minister Corbyn, what on earth would they talk about, as they just seem so very different!
Which one in all reality has more of a chance of being their countries leader??
Can a natural born Canadian become US President - I don't think we will need to call in the lawyers after Tuesday.
Still he should win the Montana primary on 7 June - it's very close to Canada!
Oh, a hundred miles give or take from Calgary where Cruz was born, which of course has an American consulate even though it is not even a provincial capital. Cruz is American, not Albertan.
Does he? That is very brave of him. The last president to cross the banksters took a bullet in the head.
All he would need to do is get rid of the Fed. Once they no longer control money creation in the US, the banks will break themselves up.
I would love to see a Sanders V. Trump election. I just could not lose:)
Breaking up the banks may not be a good idea though. The ability to engage in global banking can be a positive thing. Bernie doesn't stop to think who is going to generate the income that he can tax for all his programs, when he's broken up the banks.
Oh, a hundred miles give or take from Calgary where Cruz was born, which of course has an American consulate even though it is not even a provincial capital. Cruz is American, not Albertan.
Yet if you are a U.S. citizen born in another country, it's not the same as being born in the soil.
Comments
they just need to read some transcripts of his speeches , those would be funnier than any jokes anyway ;-)
At least we can see transcripts of his speeches! ;-)
http://www.c-span.org/2016-White-House-Correspondents-Association-Dinner/
I seriously doubt the Donald made any money selling policy favors.
And now as you mention his wealth, I wonder what his annual earnings and assets values are worth compared to Hilliary's. Her tax returns show an increase from 500,000 annual earnings to 38,000,000.00 annual earnings since her husband left office. Somehow I doubt her secretarial pay packet can entirely account for the acquisition of assets sufficient to produce that increase in annual earnings.
Call me cynical:cool:
and none of that has anything to do with your original comment or my reply
you keep banging on about clinton being in bed with corporate america and accepting money from them and i agree thats a bad thing
my concern is why would that make you favour trump when he isn't just in bed with corporate america he is part of that establishment himself and was also more than happy to throw his own money her way when she was up against obama for the nomination 8 years ago
call me cynical but that suggests significant amounts of selective amnesia about what trump actually represents
Why is it a problem what Hillary makes on her speeches when Colin Powell gets $110K a speech?
I agree Trump is all out establishment. Just not a party insider. He didn't make political mistakes because he was never a politician.
No, not selective amnesia. It's about knowing the difference between wealthy people and large international organizations that owe allegiance to no one.
Trump might be wealthy, but when all is said and done he is just a real estate developer and doesn't have the kind of money and power a company like GE wields, for example.
Multi-national corporations of that stature are a whole different animal. And, in my opinion, their political influence is the scourge of our time.
Besides, the media in the US. hate Trump, so I like him. Simple really.
The media may not like Trump, but they give him lots of coverage and publicity. While basically ignoring Sanders.
I must have missed where Trump is going to break up corporations.
How can you call Trump a part of the establishment? Utter drivel. The GOP establishment, the media and almost every single head-of-state are against Trump. He is most certainly NOT part of the establishment.
He's part of the capitalist establishment, the church establishment, got his real estate funding from big banks.
He's just not a GOP insider.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-leads-cruz-15-crucial-indiana-race
I expect Trump to win it - but it's not easy to call.
No one said Trump plans on breaking up "corporations".
Just to be clear though, corporations in and of themselves are not a problem. I have directed and owned a corporation myself and can assure you there is nothing inherently evil about them. Hereabouts, anyone with the rough equivalent of two hundred pounds in their pocket can incorporate their business enterprise.
However, not all corporations are created equal. In Canada, for example, 95% of all corporations are small operations that account for a combined 5% of GDP where the other 5% of corporations account for 95% of GDP.
The trouble comes from politicians who are hungry for power but very short on economic sense. They fall prey to large organizations that have amassed enough resources to have global reach. Such organizations, acting in self interest, seek to influence fiscal policy to benefit their own agendas rather than the needs of the economy as a whole.
In fact, some businesses have now amassed sufficient resources to have an unhealthy influence on society as a whole .... I think I can safely point out the U.S. media is almost wholly owned by just six count them, six mutli-national corporations. I could also point to companies like the 1910 fruit gum company that are known to have influenced the US. to unnecessary military intervention. Look up the origin of the term Banana Republic and you might just get a surprise.
What I was commenting on is that it's Sanders who wants to break up big banks.
I hope he wins. Cruz will be so smug otherwise. I find him creepy enough as it is. We can't have the naive fool thinking he may have a chance.
Does he? That is very brave of him. The last president to cross the banksters took a bullet in the head.
All he would need to do is get rid of the Fed. Once they no longer control money creation in the US, the banks will break themselves up.
I would love to see a Sanders V. Trump election. I just could not lose:)
Which one in all reality has more of a chance of being their countries leader??
http://getoffthebs.com/heidi-cruz-confronts-fiorina-for-sleeping-with-lyin-ted-cruz/
Having a Canadian run for American office is one thing, but this just keeps on getting crazier by the hour, if not day!
Can a natural born Canadian become US President - I don't think we will need to call in the lawyers after Tuesday.
Still he should win the Montana primary on 7 June - it's very close to Canada!
Story quite possibly not true.
are you really that desperate to be trotting out this nonsense still ?
Oh, a hundred miles give or take from Calgary where Cruz was born, which of course has an American consulate even though it is not even a provincial capital. Cruz is American, not Albertan.
Breaking up the banks may not be a good idea though. The ability to engage in global banking can be a positive thing. Bernie doesn't stop to think who is going to generate the income that he can tax for all his programs, when he's broken up the banks.
Yet if you are a U.S. citizen born in another country, it's not the same as being born in the soil.