tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post8974126049272484949..comments2024-03-18T08:02:51.154-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: Buying Political ProtectionStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-69591121855568033972016-07-23T12:49:35.737-07:002016-07-23T12:49:35.737-07:00Interesting that Asians don't count as diverse...Interesting that Asians don't count as diverse... but Hispanic whites do. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-23261223456393900332016-07-23T12:47:50.309-07:002016-07-23T12:47:50.309-07:00Yeah, the Democrats got touch on Bill Gates... unt...Yeah, the Democrats got touch on Bill Gates... until he began to donate generously to Proggy causes. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-53597377447623901992016-07-22T07:19:59.620-07:002016-07-22T07:19:59.620-07:00Poor Microsoft. Bill Gates just thought it was en...Poor Microsoft. Bill Gates just thought it was enough to surround himself with really, really smart people. HA!<br /><br />The company was hounded by the Clinton Justice Department for antitrust in the 1990s. After the case was over, they got wise. They hired lots of lobbyists, some through the Podesta Group. That's John Podesta, the Clinton's most loyal and reliable hack.<br /><br />Google is much more wise. They pay people off to avoid antitrust.<br /><br />What is amusing is how Microsoft was portrayed as the Death Star of the tech industry, a company so dominant and dangerous that its operating system dominance had to be regulated, or the company had to be broken up. Joel Klein headed-up that effort, and then went to be Chancellor of New York Public Schools. Ahh, the revolving door of bureaucracy. You can bet he's cashing in on multiple pensions.<br /><br />Google is much, much, much more powerful and dangerous today than Microsoft ever was. I don't trust Google one bit, but I'm not going to go off the grid, either.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-12295132294721791112016-07-22T07:14:19.284-07:002016-07-22T07:14:19.284-07:00Ares Olympus @July 22, 2016 at 6:22 AM:
"Not...Ares Olympus @July 22, 2016 at 6:22 AM:<br /><br />"Nothing in that article talked about diversity."<br /><br />Ares, you are insufferable.<br /><br />Stuart is talking about influence-peddling at a macro level. It's about "What's right for thee is not for me." It's about a PR mirage/smokescreen instead of facts. It's obfuscation. I would expect you to understand this.<br /><br />And the Bloomberg article said nothing about Citizens United. You added that.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-76469637139918336142016-07-22T06:22:00.880-07:002016-07-22T06:22:00.880-07:00Stuart: But, let us not forget diversity. ... Sinc...Stuart: But, let us not forget diversity. ... Since [Sheryl Sandberg] has the power to do something about [gender equity], her failure to do so suggests that she would rather see other company, her competitors, adopt her policies. <br /><br />Nothing in that article talked about diversity. <br /><br />Are you suggesting Sheryl Sandberg will use her political leverage to get State or National Democrats to legislate some sort of feminist quota system for hirees?<br /><br />Or you suggesting the high tech oligarchs are giving political payouts to stop them from moving forward on equity ideology from the Feminists?<br /><br />I suppose a good racket can work both angles at the same time.<br /><br />On the other hand, Hillary is also apparently taking money from the people who want politicians to stop taking money from corporations, via Super PACs and such.<br />http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/07/16/hillary-clinton-push-constitutional-amendment-overturn-citizens-united/87186452/<br />----<br />Democrat Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in her first 30 days as president, her campaign said.<br /><br />Clinton first made the pledge to overturn the decision in 2015 during the opening week of her presidential campaign. The 2010 high court ruling, which allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections, has helped release a flood of political money in federal, state and local contests.<br /><br />In a statement, campaign officials called overturning the controversial decision a key part of Clinton’s plan to “challenge the stranglehold that wealthy interests have over our political system.”<br />---<br /><br />What is Trump's position on Citizens United? Well, against it at least last August, although perhaps he's saying the opposite, that we should be more honest and allow direct coordination for unlimited corporate money to campaigns?<br /><br />http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-04/trump-the-developer-loves-low-interest-rates-trump-the-candidate-sees-a-bubble-<br />---<br />Trump also criticized Citizens United, the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for unlimited independent spending to influence elections. He said super-PACs, which are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns they support, are a "total phony deal," noting that Jeb Bush's super-PAC is run by "somebody that's very close to him." He said the law "forces people into being somewhat dishonest."<br /><br />"I guess from my standpoint personally I'd almost rather not see it," he said of candidates seeking to raise large amounts of money from the Koch brothers. "I see all of the money that's being raised by these folks, and they're raising hundreds of millions of dollars, and ultimately billions of dollars."<br />---Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com