Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax 'loophole' address with 285,000 firms

[Rune]

IMO this is a case of the smear job by implication. This was as far as I know, circulated by the pitchfork left. Until now those cranks are the only ones I've heard this from. I've received lots of texts and emails from the cranks on the left, some of whom unfortunately I'm sort of friends with. Most of them don't actually work, I have to be honest. They're either professional activists or professional protesters or on some sort of gravy program. I mean, not gravy exactly, these are not people living high on the hog by any means. But they by no means know jackshit about business I can tell you that. I've found that you have to investigate the bs passed around by the pitchfork left just as hard as you do by the kooky right. You will often find they meet! I agree with Cawacko here.

It sure is.
One only needs to consider the source (annata) to know that.
Stupid fucker isn't even clever enough to support one side or the other.

 

[anatta]

I have two lawyer buddies that I saw wrote about this on facebook. Both said the article was a hit piece. They say Delaware has the most straightforward and easy to use system set up for corporations to use which is why half of U.S. corps register there. They said there is nothing nefarious behind it.

I don't have the knowledge to speak personally on the system but if this was really a scandal seems it would have come out into the open years ago.

It is not nefarious, nor illegal -it goes to Clinton's hypocrisy. Much like her saying she's gonna fix campaign reform while having SuperPac,
and giving Wall St speeches for $1/4 million a pop -while refusing to release the transcripts.

At some point her patterns of behavior have to be believed more than her bleating none of this matters.

Clinton, who has repeatedly promised that as president she will crack down on “outrageous tax havens and loopholes that super-rich people across the world are exploiting in Panama and elsewhere”, collected more than $16m in public speaking fees and book royalties in 2014 through the doors of 1209, according to the Clintons’ tax return

Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton’s Fundraising Is ‘Obscene’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...scene-fundraising_us_56f7e38fe4b0143a9b48755c

here is also some questions about the Clinton foundation, not that you'll find a direct quid pro quo but:

Foreign donation slipped Clinton vetting process
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-ethics-115527

given all this ( and more) - why believe she is anything but a corporate toad?
we could do much better then her incompetence $ influence peddling

 

[Rune]

It is not nefarious, nor illegal -it goes to Clinton's hypocrisy. Much like her saying she's gonna fix campaign reform while having SuperPac,
and giving Wall St speeches for $1/4 million a pop -while refusing to release the transcripts.

At some point her patterns of behavior have to be believed more than her bleating none of this matters.



Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton’s Fundraising Is ‘Obscene’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...scene-fundraising_us_56f7e38fe4b0143a9b48755c

here is also some questions about the Clinton foundation, not that you'll find a direct quid pro quo but:

Foreign donation slipped Clinton vetting process
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-ethics-115527

given all this ( and more) - why believe she is anything but a corporate toad?
we could do much better then her incompetence $ influence peddling

We could?
Who do you suggest?

 

[anatta]

We could?
Who do you suggest?

we had a shot with Bernie.
Thankfully the young people understood just how vile Clinton's campaign tactics are, and many will not support her.
True progressives will not support her as a "lessor of 2evils" I won't support her because of all this and her incompetence as Sec of State.

In some ways I'd even prefer Trump from outside the establishment, although Trump is certainly no Sanders.

ABC=Anybody But Clinton; as she is a loathsome choice on all fronts.

 

[Rune]

we had a shot with Bernie.
Thankfully the young people understood just how vile Clinton's campaign tactics are, and many will not support her.
True progressives will not support her as a "lessor of 2evils" I won't support her because of all this and her incompetence as Sec of State.

In some ways I'd even prefer Trump from outside the establishment, although Trump is certainly no Sanders.

ABC=Anybody But Clinton; as she is a loathsome choice on all fronts.

Right but we are stuck withTrump/Clinton are we not?
Your point is moot.

 

[anatta]

Right but we are stuck withTrump/Clinton are we not?
Your point is moot.

nope. You can vote your conscience, and support a 3rd party. That's good for future ballot access as well.
Or you can vote for your choice of lessor of 2 evils -which is still an evil.

 

[Rune]

nope. You can vote your conscience, and support a 3rd party. That's good for future ballot access as well.
Or you can vote for your choice of lessor of 2 evils -which is still an evil.

Wrong.
You CAN vote 3rd party but you are still stuck with either Clinton or Trump.

 

[anatta]

Wrong.
You CAN vote 3rd party but you are still stuck with either Clinton or Trump.

true enough. agreed.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Actually all polling is showing that young people will support Hillary in the general. She beats Trump among millennials, I believe the last figure I saw this morning has trump at 25% among millennials. The people who won't vote for her are the pitchfork left. They are mostly comprised of the perpetually miserable old white male hippies. They rarely if ever vote Dem. They vote third party.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It is not nefarious, nor illegal -it goes to Clinton's hypocrisy. Much like her saying she's gonna fix campaign reform while having SuperPac,
and giving Wall St speeches for $1/4 million a pop -while refusing to release the transcripts.

At some point her patterns of behavior have to be believed more than her bleating none of this matters.



Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton’s Fundraising Is ‘Obscene’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...scene-fundraising_us_56f7e38fe4b0143a9b48755c

here is also some questions about the Clinton foundation, not that you'll find a direct quid pro quo but:

Foreign donation slipped Clinton vetting process
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/clinton-foundation-foreign-donations-ethics-115527

given all this ( and more) - why believe she is anything but a corporate toad?
we could do much better then her incompetence $ influence peddling

Bernie always cries that her fundraising is obscene, but of course she is also raising money for downticket and state races. When asked how he will implement ANY of his policies without a Dem senate or House, Bernie answers "incomprehensible blather....Revolution! incomprehensible blather...." Bernie has raised no money for downticket dems, and after months of increasing pressure he sent an email to supporters asking them to donate to three dems of his choosing. ALL three were running primaries against other democrats.

not that you'll find a direct quid pro quo but:

Smear by insinuation once again.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Some call them Puritopians:

"A Puritopian is a self-described liberal or progressive whose political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly or forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents. They are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as "selling out" liberal ideas like full employment, an end to war, and liberal social policy. Their views can often sound like utopian fantasy where opposing views never exist.Puritopians dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made. Puritopians routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles. Puritopians have an affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism. "

I prefer pitchfork left.

 

[anatta]

Bernie always cries that her fundraising is obscene, but of course she is also raising money for downticket and state races. When asked how he will implement ANY of his policies without a Dem senate or House, Bernie answers "incomprehensible blather....Revolution! incomprehensible blather...." Bernie has raised no money for downticket dems, and after months of increasing pressure he sent an email to supporters asking them to donate to three dems of his choosing. ALL three were running primaries against other democrats.

Smear by insinuation once again.

she is raising money for downtickets, but she is doing it in a corrupt manner.
She is using a superpac ,and bundling big donors -she can't raise individual donors, because they go to sanders.
She is a corporatist, she will not support Single Pay (unless she can do it -Bernie can't according to the Clintonistas).
She gets rich od Wall St speeches, and then comes up with bent reasons not to release the transcripts.

But worse of all she is a warmongering failure as Sec of State who is chief architect and advocate of the Libyan war-
which not only destroyed Libya, but created a haven for ISIS in Libya.
That was her work according to Gates, the NYTimes, and her own State Dept's "tic toc on Libya" memo.
Plus she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels.. she is a 100% screw up as Sec of State.
Oh ! and don't forget the Iraq vote!

Hillary Clinton,
‘Smart Power’
and a
Dictator’s Fall

The president was wary. The secretary
of state was persuasive. But the ouster
of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya
a failed state and a terrorist haven.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html
++

Jake Sullivan
Sant: Sunday, August 21, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Mills, Cheryl D; Nuiand, Victoria J
Subject: tidc todc on libya
this is basically off the top of my head, with a few consultations of my notes. but it shows S'Clinton
leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's libya policy from start to finish, let me know what you
think. toria, who else might be able to add to this?

Secretary Clinton's leadership on Libya
HRC has been a critical voice on Libya in administration deliberations, at NATO, and in contact group
meetings — as well as the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya. She was instrumental in securing the
authorization, building the coalition, and tightening the noose around Qadhafi and his regime.
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH1/DOC_0C05739752/C05739752.pdf

Yes Bernie can implement his policies -the New York Post piece was a hit piece; but I agree he was unprepared.
but even if he isn't completely successful -what does Clinton offer but her shape shifting support/opposition to the TransPacificPartnership?

Bernie was wrong to knock her qualifications, but he changed that after a couple of days to knock her judgment-
and everything Clinton does from fundraising to warmongering shows she lacks an ability to evaluate.

I'm not caring about downtickets -not when a new POTUS is up for a possible next 8 years.
I vote the person always.
Clinton is severely lacking in every instance of evaluation by her actions.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Some call them Puritopians:

"A Puritopian is a self-described liberal or progressive whose political orientation is to be angry, dissatisfied and unhappy with the state of the nation, because in their view, liberal policies are not being implemented quickly or forcefully enough. They have particular contempt for Democratic presidents. They are ideological purists who disdain compromise and incremental change, which they see as "selling out" liberal ideas like full employment, an end to war, and liberal social policy. Their views can often sound like utopian fantasy where opposing views never exist.Puritopians dislike Republicans but reserve their greatest disdain for Democratic presidents, whom they relentlessly attack for not meeting a set of ideological goal posts that are constantly adjusted to ensure that the president will be deemed a disappointment, "not progressive enough" or "just like a Republican" no matter what policy achievements are made. Puritopians routinely dismiss or ignore congress' role in making or impeding policy, believing presidents can simply "use the bully pulpit" in order to overcome constitutional or legislative obstacles. Puritopians have an affinity for 3rd party politics as a way to punish Democratic presidents. They are especially hostile to President Obama and deem anyone who expresses a lack of ill will toward him to be "Obamabots" and enemies of liberalism. "

I prefer pitchfork left.

Since you failed to provide a link to the source you plagiarized, I found it for you.

Urban Dictionary