PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on April 13, 2016, 05:45:34 AM
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/cruz-wallstreet-221844
NEW YORK -- This Monday, assorted bankers, traders and Wall Street lawyers will gather inside the neo-Georgian walls of the Harvard Club in midtown Manhattan to write big checks to an unlikely recipient: Ted Cruz.
Cruz, who attended Harvard Law School, isn't one to trade too heavily on old school ties and friendships at the likes of Goldman Sachs, where his wife works. On the campaign trail, the Texas senator has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism,” ripped giant banks as “too big to fail” and wrapped himself in populist garb in his quest to take down Donald Trump. But now he's desperate: Cruz, who has already received $12 million in support from the financial industry, needs Wall Street money more than ever.
-
Whether you consider yourself and "insider" or an "outsider", the best way to change a system, sans violence, is from within. If you want to change the rules (or customs) of the game, you still need to follow the rules (or the customs) in order to change them. But following the rules is a requirement. Following the "customs" is a tactic. There is a big difference.
Cruz is a master of following the rules. It seems he is learning the necessity of following the customs. That is a shame, as reality often is.
-
Yes, it's much better to obtain influence the old fashioned way - by buying off politicians of both parties so that the skids can be greased for your personal business interests.
Privatize profits, socialize losses. The Trump way of doing business.
-
Yes, it's much better to obtain influence the old fashioned way - by buying off politicians of both parties so that the skids can be greased for your personal business interests.
Privatize profits, socialize losses. The Trump way of doing business.
So we have a candidate running as an "outsider" who is an Ivy League graduate (establishment), worked in the Bush Administration (establishment) has a wife who is an executive for Goldman Sachs (establishment) and gets funding by Wall Street (establishment), but we are are suppose to suspend belief and believe he's an "outsider".
If it quacks like a duck......
-
So we have a candidate running as an "outsider" who is an Ivy League graduate (establishment), worked in the Bush Administration (establishment) has a wife who is an executive for Goldman Sachs (establishment) and gets funding by Wall Street (establishment), but we are are suppose to suspend belief and believe he's an "outsider".
If it quacks like a duck......
As opposed to Trump who funds the establishment. GMAFB.
-
As opposed to Trump who funds the establishment. GMAFB.
He funded both sides,
. . .from the outside.
And that may still give him leverage to use on the Ds once he is in office.
The real question is do we believe he means what he is saying now? And does that overcome what we know Hillary will do?
-
He funded both sides,
. . .from the outside.
And that may still give him leverage to use on the Ds once he is in office.
The real question is do we believe he means what he is saying now? And does that overcome what we know Hillary will do?
Sorry, you're right. Trump is more part of the Dem Establishment.
-
Sorry, you're right. Trump is more part of the Dem Establishment.
Well, I'm not sure if you are one of them, but I recall a whole lot of people saying there is no difference between the two "establishments" as it is. We are always picking the one we think is not the worst.
(Is this any way to run a country?) ::)
-
Well, I'm not sure if you are one of them, but I recall a whole lot of people saying there is no difference between the two "establishments" as it is. We are always picking the one we think is not the worst.
(Is this any way to run a country?) ::)
The Republican Establishment and the Democrat Establishment have more in common than they do in differences. George Wallace once commented "There's not a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat".
-
The Republican Establishment and the Democrat Establishment have more in common than they do in differences. George Wallace once commented "There's not a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat".
So: Trump=Hillary
-
So: Trump=Hillary
And Cruz = Sanders.
Or do you really believe that Cruz is the one and only politician ever that won't change once he attains office and responsibility?
-
I don't accept that the Republican and Democrat parties are interchangeable. I believe one stands for conservatism and limited government, despite Trump's trying to prove otherwise, while the other stands for statism and nannyism.
If you believe they're both the same, then Trump=Hillary. I make no such claim, and reject the premise.
-
The Republican Establishment and the Democrat Establishment have more in common than they do in differences. George Wallace once commented "There's not a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat".
It is good theater to make the accusation that this or that republican is a tool of Wall Street, but other than as theater for those who wish not to debate real facts, the likelihood that Ted Cruz would abuse Wall Street lackeys like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, when they had significant power to hold him back, then fall in the lap of Wall Street, is a fantasy that doesn't add up.
-
It is good theater to make the accusation that this or that republican is a tool of Wall Street, but other than as theater for those who wish not to debate real facts, the likelihood that Ted Cruz would abuse Wall Street lackeys like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, when they had significant power to hold him back, then fall in the lap of Wall Street, is a fantasy that doesn't add up.
The fantasy is trying to believe Cruz is any different from the other establishment lackeys.
-
And Cruz = Sanders.
Or do you really believe that Cruz is the one and only politician ever that won't change once he attains office and responsibility?
I won't speak for Jeff, but I think he is the one and only candidate running who has any chance of following through with his promises. He has principles, and followed through on them in his senate career, at great political cost. When has Trump, Sanders, or Clinton ever stood for something even if it may cost them an election or political power or financial gains?
-
The fantasy is trying to believe Cruz is any different from the other establishment lackeys.
And the fact that Trump was the buyer of influence and political corruption means nothing to you, does it?
-
I won't speak for Jeff, but I think he is the one and only candidate running who has any chance of following through with his promises. He has principles, and followed through on them in his senate career, at great political cost. When has Trump, Sanders, or Clinton ever stood for something even if it may cost them an election or political power or financial gains?
I would say that Sanders has principles. I think his principles are ill informed and dead wrong, but I do believe that he truly believes the shit that comes out of his mouth and doesn't change it to suit changing political winds.
Hillary? Excuse me while I laugh uncontrollably.
Trump has yet to demonstrate anything resembling a guiding principle.
-
I don't accept that the Republican and Democrat parties are interchangeable. I believe one stands for conservatism and limited government, despite Trump's trying to prove otherwise, while the other stands for statism and nannyism.
If you believe they're both the same, then Trump=Hillary. I make no such claim, and reject the premise.
Trump isn't trying to prove otherwise, the current GOP members ARE proving otherwise.
-
I won't speak for Jeff, but I think he is the one and only candidate running who has any chance of following through with his promises. He has principles, and followed through on them in his senate career, at great political cost. When has Trump, Sanders, or Clinton ever stood for something even if it may cost them an election or political power or financial gains?
And if elected, an almost impossibility, and holds true, I'll buy you a coke. Otherwise, I'll gladly accept a coke on your behalf. Deal?
-
I would say that Sanders has principles. I think his principles are ill informed and dead wrong, but I do believe that he truly believes the shit that comes out of his mouth and doesn't change it to suit changing political winds.
Hillary? Excuse me while I laugh uncontrollably.
Trump has yet to demonstrate anything resembling a guiding principle.
True, but what has Sanders done with those principles since joining Congress in 1991? Other than sponsoring bills renaming Post Offices, I'm not sure he took any risks that would cause him to lose his status as a career politician, going all the way back to becoming Burlington mayor in 1981.
He's shouting his principles now because it's his swan song.
-
And if elected, an almost impossibility, and holds true, I'll buy you a coke. Otherwise, I'll gladly accept a coke on your behalf. Deal?
Deal. Do you go to Oshkosh?
-
Deal. Do you go to Oshkosh?
Generally no but can hitch a ride in my buddy's Baron. Look forward to swapping cokes either way.
-
And the fact that Trump was the buyer of influence and political corruption means nothing to you, does it?
Sure it does. But I don't believe the fairy tale that Cruz is some how not a part of this. The guy reeks of phony.
So why has the Republican Party had so much difficulty attracting quality candidates? Why does the RNC keep resorting to the lame establishment types?
Perhaps it's more about control and power than actual principals? Ask yourself why die hard dedicated Republicans would support a Hillary presidency and why they have given Obama everything he's wanted unfettered?
Of course your answer will be "Trump this" or Trump that", but try to focus for a moment.
-
Sure it does. But I don't believe the fairy tale that Cruz is some how not a part of this. The guy reeks of phony.
So why has the Republican Party had so much difficulty attracting quality candidates? Why does the RNC keep resorting to the lame establishment types?
Perhaps it's more about control and power than actual principals? Ask yourself why die hard dedicated Republicans would support a Hillary presidency and why they have given Obama everything he's wanted unfettered?
Of course your answer will be "Trump this" or Trump that", but try to focus for a moment.
So I ask about Trump's publicly-acknowledged and admitted payments to politicians for influence and likely quid pro quo, and you turn this around to me because of how you "feel" about Cruz?
Got it, Saul.
-
And the fact that Trump was the buyer of influence and political corruption means nothing to you, does it?
Not really. No more than Cruz accepting contributions. Do you really believe there is no quid-quo-pro involved in any of his contributions? In fact, I have a bigger problem with politicians selling influence that I do with the buyers.
-
I have a bigger problem with politicians selling influence that I do with the buyers.
Why?
If there's nobody buying, there'd be nobody selling. But for such offers, there'd be no opportunity for corruption.
-
Why?
If there's nobody buying, there'd be nobody selling. But for such offers, there'd be no opportunity for corruption.
hahaha
Do you really believe that? You must. You have said it at least twice.
I disagree with you. That makes us really smart (or idiots per Jaybird).
There is always a market if you are selling a limited commodity of something of value. If one person doesn't buy it because of principal, someone else will. If a politician says you have to pay to play, and if you wish to play, then you pay. Otherwise, you are one of the unwashed masses.
-
hahaha
Do you really believe that? You must. You have said it at least twice.
I disagree with you. That makes us really smart (or idiots per Jaybird).
There is always a market if you are selling a limited commodity of something of value. If one person doesn't buy it because of principal, someone else will. If a politician says you have to pay to play, and if you wish to play, then you pay. Otherwise, you are one of the unwashed masses.
I'm not saying the buyer is worse than the seller, but I'm not saying the seller is worse than the buyer.
-
So I ask about Trump's publicly-acknowledged and admitted payments to politicians for influence and likely quid pro quo, and you turn this around to me because of how you "feel" about Cruz?
Got it, Saul.
Coming from the guy that can't answer a simple question without a "Trump" blame included.
LOL!
-
hahaha
Do you really believe that? You must. You have said it at least twice.
I disagree with you. That makes us really smart (or idiots per Jaybird).
There is always a market if you are selling a limited commodity of something of value. If one person doesn't buy it because of principal, someone else will. If a politician says you have to pay to play, and if you wish to play, then you pay. Otherwise, you are one of the unwashed masses.
To believe your position, one would have to believe that people contribute to politicians out of detached and disinterested generosity, instead of expecting a quid pro quo.
I think that is true for small dollar amounts - I don't expect Cruz to make me an ambassador for my $35 contribution - but when you are moving $25,000, $100,000, (Trump amounts) you likely have an expectation for a quid pro quo, which is as illegal for the buyer as it is for the seller. People have gone to prison for far less.
-
Saw this on Reddit. Not intended as a statement on anything, but I chuckled.
(http://i.imgur.com/JLGLhyb.png)
-
Those hands are almost as small as Trump's. ;D
-
To believe your position, one would have to believe that people contribute to politicians out of detached and disinterested generosity, instead of expecting a quid pro quo.
I think that is true for small dollar amounts - I don't expect Cruz to make me an ambassador for my $35 contribution - but when you are moving $25,000, $100,000, (Trump amounts) you likely have an expectation for a quid pro quo, which is as illegal for the buyer as it is for the seller. People have gone to prison for far less.
In other words (damn I hate it when people say that),
What you are saying is that they are both wrong,
But you and Jeff seem to think the other guy is more wrong because he is "the other guy".
-
In other words (damn I hate it when people say that),
What you are saying is that they are both wrong,
But you and Jeff seem to think the other guy is more wrong because he is "the other guy".
No, I think "the other guy" is pulling the wool over your (collectively, not you personally) eyes by implying that since he's über wealthy he can't be bought because he doesn't need the contributions (though unless he's going to throw $1 billion of his own fortune at his general campaign, he's going to need contributions at some point).
The "other guy" certainly expected an illegal quid pro quo when he donated significant sums to various politicians. That's probably worse.
For the record, I'm not against political contributions on first amendment grounds, and I detest ways to prevent them such as McCain Feingold.
-
I don't accept that the Republican and Democrat parties are interchangeable. I believe one stands for conservatism and limited government, despite Trump's trying to prove otherwise, while the other stands for statism and nannyism.
Seriously you jest.
-
The establishment Republicans want to keep growing government just like the Democrats.
-
The establishment Republicans want to keep growing government just like the Democrats.
I believe that the Republicans want to keep growing government DIFFERENTLY than the Democrats.
-
I believe that the Republicans want to keep growing government DIFFERENTLY than the Democrats.
Both sides are working towards the same goal. Growing government means more spending which means more money going into the pockets of wealthy investors, which in turn spend money to keep politicians in office. That and the politicians have a lucrative life after politics benefiting from the same wealthy class.
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." -The Who "We won't get fooled again".
-
I believe that the Republicans want to keep growing government DIFFERENTLY than the Democrats.
I disagree. I think the mainstream Republicans want to grow government just like the Democrats.
-
I disagree. I think the mainstream Republicans want to grow government just like the Democrats.
Do you mean they want to grow welfare and single payer healthcare and the EPA and the Federal Dept of Education?
I don't. I believe they want to grow government, but I believe they want to grow it differently than the Ds do.
-
The modern republican is what the democrat liberals were in the sixties.
The modern democrats are freaking communists.
-
The modern republican is what the democrat liberals were in the sixties.
The modern democrats are freaking communists.
The DNC, and mainstream Democrats have gone full retard communist today. It is being embraced by people also. It is freaking scary.