So does this mean that you think that in the infinitesimal chance that Trump becomes President, afterwards he won't do speeches for big fees ? Or is it that you think he will do them, but that he won't feel that it might be courteous to take the phone call of someone that has paid him 200K for a 45 minute speech ?
My guess is that based on what we know of Trump, he is far more likely to prostitute himself for money than any politician in the history of the world. As far as we know, money and power is all he has ever really cared about. The Clintons get those big fees because a lot of people actually see them as public servants first, and because they also seem to know what they are talking about.
To the older generation, white folk becoming a minority is far more frightening than it is to younger generations. Partly that's because the older generations are more white and more sheltered in their experiences. Younger folks have more experience with diversity. That experience has taught them that people are more or less the same, and that diversity is already here. Nothing to fear.
We need to worry much more about people being able to make decent living and have healthy families than we do about demographic percentages.
This decline in some parts of the world affects society and politics, the CIA warned:
Quote Countries with young populations (high percentage under age 15) need to invest more in schools, while countries with older populations (high percentage aged 65 and over) need to invest more in the health sector.
"The age structure also can be used to help predict potential political issues. For example, the rapid growth of a young adult population unable to find employment can lead to unrest."
For now, Europe's hope to see continued positive population growth remains in the hands of migrants, often younger and in search of a better life for themselves and their family.
No wonder he is branding the former first lady and Secretary of State as “crooked Hillary.”
He's branding her that way because he hopes it might stick.
What says the most about you relative to Trump is that you don't mind that Trump lies at least 3 times as much as Hillary. You're going to support him and talk him up even though he's provably far less honest and far more crooked than Hillary. What makes you so unable to see the risk of having Trump as our President ? What makes you think that the quality of having zero government experience in the case of Donald Trump is some kind of big plus.
If he was some kind of amazing deal maker that even might lend him some credibility. But he's not. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows, he's just a bullshit artist.
There are numerous examples of politicians being paid big bucks for speaking fees after leaving office ( Tony Blair, GWB, even Sarah Palin). This is after leaving office, so they aren't being "bought." There is nothing those paying the fees are expecting to get in return.
The bullet list below is a doozy…and speaks volumes as to how Trump will deal with Hillary’s obligation to “pay back” the big business fees she collected if elected US President.
It's amazing how clueless you are.
Let's take an example.
06/10/2014, United Fresh Produce Association Chicago, II.: $225,000
Let's say that there is some bill or policy being considered a few years from now regarding how produce is transported, or regarding GMOs or whatever. And this organization has a strong opinion on it. Do you really think that having paid Hillary this speaking fee makes her obliged to support their view? No. Obviously wrong. At most they might be able to hope (not expect) that she might take their call and listen to their point of view, in light of the fact that she got a nice little pay day from them. Big fucking deal. That's just a courtesy she might give them if she has the time.
Yes, ex-politicians, at least the successful ones, or extremely high level ones, get paid a lot to speak.
Why does Bill Clinton get bigger and more frequent fees than GWB ? Because he was more successful and becasue he's a way more interesting speaker. Clinton is interesting to listen to. It's not because of future access they hope to get to the white house.
I think for someone who paid Bill CLinton a speaking fee a few years back, to hope that they might have access to Hillary if and when she's President is a stretch. Bill might take their call and listen to them, but I doubt he would bother Hillary with their issue, unless he agreed with what they wanted anyway.
Marcu is wroking overtime in the classroom to make those kids feel shame of their successful family and proper upbringing.
You still haven't figured out what teaching high school and early college level Mathematics is about eh ? You should take a couple classes at a junior college, just for amusement. It starts to get pretty interesting at about the pre-calculus level. You might find it interesting. We're talking some seriously cool things that were figured out just a few centuries ago, at about the same time that a lot of great classical music and art was happening. This period is often referred to as the age of enlightenment. It was a precursor to the industrial revolution and to a lot of our technological abilities today.
The classes I teach are all available at junior colleges if you are interested. You won't find any of the social engineering that you fantasize goes on. I recommend it as an aid in preventing intellectual decline, but also helping you overcome the overly emotional basis of your thought processes. Seriously. You might be able to undo at least some of the damage caused by all these years of immersing yourself in right wing talk radio and the internet. Believe it or not, it would also help you with your reading and writing skills.
Change happens. Big change happens, as tough as that is for humans, and especially for conservatives to handle. Actually humans are pretty adaptable. It takes a lot of optimism to assume that as a group humanity will navigate coming decades and centuries well. But what I was speculating on was way beyond "our culture" or anything you or I can imagine.
It's hard, if not impossible to imagine what the world is going to be like 40 years from now, let alone 300 years from now. My guess or opinion about what's inevitable is actually somewhat optimistic.
I think what you are saying is that if we could achieve a world where there were no gun deaths by removing guns from society, wouldn't that be worth relinquishing our personal gun rights?
No, I was just asking a question. I am not for trying to eliminate all guns. But I think if we progress for many more centuries, eventually having less freedom, more government control, cameras everywhere, and close zero crime, and no guns, is inevitable. I'm not really "for" that and I don't think it's coming soon. I just think it's inevitable.
As for now and the near term future ? It's too late now, but having super serious restrictions on hand guns in this country, and only single shot, or small clip, but not semi auto, rifles, might have been a good thing, if we had done it. But as I said, it's too late now.
Just so you know, I like shooting guns. I don't have one now (except a shotgun that's packed away), but I enjoyed them as a kid. I was a member of a gun club (shooting 22 rifles), and the NRA, and worked my way up to I think it was 5th bar sharpshooter. Just a couple bars from expert level.
It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.
“Historically, the leadership of the NRA was more open-minded about gun control than someone familiar with the modern NRA might imagine,” wrote Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment scholar at U.C.L.A. Law School, in his 2011 book, Gunfight: The Battle Over The Right To Bear Arms In America. “The Second Amendment was not nearly as central to the NRA’s identity for most of the organization’s history.”