2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

Hillary spokesperson Maggie Haberman says hold on a minute ....

Let us hope she is correct


data-star-trek-smile.gif
 
Last edited:
As foolishly self-confident as Hillary is, she can't hold a candle to BO. Check out this quote:

“if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles who are running around thinking they can change the world,” hope is attainable."

Obama: Hope Possible by Training a 'Million Baracks and Michelles'

Yup, only BO and Michelle can save the world.

I keep waiting for Michelle to jump in the 2020 election. The MSM would have a collective orgasm and Beto and company would all be running to be her VP choice.
 
Obama is easily as narcissistic as Trump. He just is a more polished persona. That people can't see that is frustrating. I mean really every President is that.
 
Clean said:
For all the good NDAs did Trump.
Click to expand...

NDAs are usually stupid for two reasons. First, there's no way to really enforce them. You may be able to sue the person for breaching it, but the damage is already done. Furthermore, unless the person has a lot of money, you're going to be wasting your time suing him or her. Second, the lawyer isn't signing the NDA. I had clients sign NDAs, but I sure as hell never did. I could have walked out of the settlement room and immediately called a press conference and publicized everything that was part of the NDA. I never did because I'm not a jackass, but I could have. And the adverse party to the NDA would have had no recourse against me at all.
 
Mr. Deez said:
NDAs are usually stupid for two reasons. First, there's no way to really enforce them. You may be able to sue the person for breaching it, but the damage is already done. Furthermore, unless the person has a lot of money, you're going to be wasting your time suing him or her. Second, the lawyer isn't signing the NDA. I had clients sign NDAs, but I sure as hell never did. I could have walked out of the settlement room and immediately called a press conference and publicize everything that was part of the NDA. I never did because I'm not a jackass, but I could have. And the adverse party to the NDA would have had no recourse against me at all.
Click to expand...

They are purely a scare tactic to make someone fearful of reprisals.
 
Monahorns said:
Obama is easily as narcissistic as Trump. He just is a more polished persona. That people can't see that is frustrating. I mean really every President is that.
Click to expand...
Maybe Obama is more polished, but Obama never faced the kind of media shitstorm that Trump faces daily. So we'll never know if Obama really is polished and intelligent.
 
Seattle Husker said:
They are purely a scare tactic to make someone fearful of reprisals.
Click to expand...

I fought them - not because I had a problem with the confidentiality. My clients generally didn't mind keeping a settlement quiet. However, thanks to Dennis Rodman, a NDA can make an otherwise untaxable personal injury settlement subject to income taxes. Link.

If I couldn't avoid such an agreement, I would insist that the agreement go both ways and that the parties stipulate that the sole consideration for my client's confidentiality was the other party's promise of confidentiality. It's not perfect, but it's about the best one could do.
 
If you want to say that President Obama was excessively idealistic, and quite ineffective as a leader, I'm on board. If you complain about how, when he didn't get his way, he shredded the constitution and usurped power to himself, I'm on your side. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the only real skill he brought to the table was extremely good public speaking. And maybe you can even make a case that he was excessively narcissistic (although comparing him to Trump in this regard is going a mile or two too far).

That said, I don't think this criticism is fair:

Clean said:
As foolishly self-confident as Hillary is, she can't hold a candle to BO. Check out this quote:

“if we can train a million Baracks and Michelles who are running around thinking they can change the world,” hope is attainable."

Obama: Hope Possible by Training a 'Million Baracks and Michelles'

Yup, only BO and Michelle can save the world.

I keep waiting for Michelle to jump in the 2020 election. The MSM would have a collective orgasm and Beto and company would all be running to be her VP choice.
Click to expand...

The statement you point to is something the Obamas have said repeatedly for the past year or more. For example, here's an article about a talk Barrack gave in March 2018. The point they are making is that no single person (or, more precisely, no two people) can change the world alone. It takes an army of active, engaged people. Thus, his goal post-presidency is to train and inspire an arsenal of people (or, more accurately, liberals) to be more involved in the political arena. This is the opposite of saying that only he and Michelle can change the world.
 
Aren't political debates something that should only be aired on NPR/PBS? That way no one else makes money on it and it is clear from the get-go that the US gov is in control of the messaging. Can't stop people from commenting afterward, but they should do that for State of the Union, debates, and more.
 
Monahorns said:
Aren't political debates something that should only be aired on NPR/PBS? ....
Click to expand...

Maybe C-SPAN

IMO, if the taxpayer is going to be forced to keep funding those other two then the taxpayer has, at minimum, the right to demand even political coverage. The fact that this demand has not been made is yet another nail in the coffin of the feckless Paul-Ryan-style Republican.
 
Joe Fan said:
Fauxchahontis has come out for breaking up Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
It's a good week for anti-monopolists.

Elizabeth Warren's new plan: Break up Amazon, Google and Facebook - CNNPolitics
excited-baby.gif
Click to expand...

Anyone who isn't worried about Google's influence and power doesn't know anything about digital marketing, or Internet search, or basically how the online economy works at all. Not sure about the fix, but the law as I understand it is that companies that occupy more than 70 percent of a market (is that right) constitute a monopoly, which is why one of the companies I worked for recently didn't push to grow its market share - because we were right at that point and didn't want to jeopardize our standing.
 
Would it really be so horrible if those companies got broken up? I'm not endorsing that, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them.
Click to expand...

No. But the last time the government oversaw this they granted regional monopolies, ex. Bell Telephone, Standard Oil. It didn't work so well with Standard because there was so much competition. But they really tried.

The best solution is for new tech companies to enter the market. The more people use DuckDuckGo or other search engines, Linux, Firefox, etc. the less power Google has. There are already alternatives to Facebook like MeWe and Minds. The only problem is getting critical mass of people using it.

The situation is really get bad to. Twitter openly shows porn and has no app downloading restrictions placed on them. Minds mobile app was taken off of Google Play for having several porn images with the naughty bits blurred out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top