Official LRC President Joseph R Biden Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

nonequals wrote:

Also, perhaps she's more notable because it was unique. Yes, we all know the silver-spooner thing. But marrying coattails, riding for a few decades, and then jumping off at NYS Senator? A new one. And gross. AND lionized for it, with no caveats in sight.

On the other hand, you shouldn't blame her for who she is. She couldn't go back in time and not marry the person she married.

So she got lucky and she was able to mix that luck with talent and determination in order to land a US Senate seat.

Should a woman be expected to just hide behind her husband the rest of her life?

I say good on Hillary for taking what life gave her and making the most of it.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

nonequals wrote:

Also, perhaps she's more notable because it was unique. Yes, we all know the silver-spooner thing. But marrying coattails, riding for a few decades, and then jumping off at NYS Senator? A new one. And gross. AND lionized for it, with no caveats in sight.

Maybe it's just me. But I find born into privilege less deserving than marrying into privilege. At least the latter takes some efforts, while the former is completely a matter of luck.

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

(Bush 1's dad was a US senator)

Got it.  Of course, there are at least 2 flavors of the silver spooner thing.  Those that no doubt greatly benefit from it, but DO at least kinda pay some dues at lower levels, and those that skip straight to rarified air.

And I don't mean to be a d***, honestly, but I don't think that Obama was on your list?  If I'm mistaken, I apologize.  If not, while certainly not a silver-spooner, still a pretty thin resume of accomplishments prior to becoming POTUS, if I recall.  "Fortunately," for whatever it's worth, that WAS at least pointed out by many.

agip wrote:

agip wrote:

Obama was born with little. he was born in Hawaii to a single mom and absent foreign father. Sort of middle class. Stepdad took them overseas. Scholarship kid at a prep school. Scholarship kid at Oxy. In other words, no money behind him and he relied on the kindness of strangers to get an education.

Then he earned Harvard Law and some low end jobs before getting elected to the state legislature. And off he went.

I mean that's about as unprivileged as possible. Bush's dad was a fricken US Senator and a mega millionaire. Obama's family...nada. I mean come on be reasonable.

...and getting elected to the state legislature is how you are supposed to get started in politics. hardly starting at a high level. Sheesh.

nonequals wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

On the other hand, you shouldn't blame her for who she is. She couldn't go back in time and not marry the person she married.

So she got lucky and she was able to mix that luck with talent and determination in order to land a US Senate seat.

Should a woman be expected to just hide behind her husband the rest of her life?

I say good on Hillary for taking what life gave her and making the most of it.

You're "inverting" my point, of course. "Hide behind forever?" Of course not. And riding coattails? OK, fine. But that certainly shouldn't earn lionization.

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

...and getting elected to the state legislature is how you are supposed to get started in politics. hardly starting at a high level. Sheesh.

It's the most important and powerful political office in the world. Pulling oneself up from modest means? Yes, great. Starting at the state level. Yes, good. But also not unreasonable to expect that he'd have some notable accomplishments from his time at lower levels. My understanding is that he didn't.

Does that compare poorly with other silver spooner situations? Probably not. But again, #1 most important politician in the world. It's not unreasonable for people to have asked, "What has he achieved as a politician/leader?" I have similar, but opposite, "sheesh" reaction to this.

Fat hurts wrote:

nonequals wrote:

You're "inverting" my point, of course. "Hide behind forever?" Of course not. And riding coattails? OK, fine. But that certainly shouldn't earn lionization.

Don't worry. Most people hate her. She's in no danger of lionization.

nonequals wrote:

agip wrote:

...and getting elected to the state legislature is how you are supposed to get started in politics. hardly starting at a high level. Sheesh. 

It's the most important and powerful political office in the world.  Pulling oneself up from modest means?  Yes, great.  Starting at the state level.  Yes, good.  But also not unreasonable to expect that he'd have some notable accomplishments from his time at lower levels.  My understanding is that he didn't.

Does that compare poorly with other silver spooner situations?  Probably not.  But again, #1 most important politician in the world.  It's not unreasonable for people to have asked, "What has he achieved as a politician/leader?"  I have similar, but opposite, "sheesh" reaction to this.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

"Some lender will realize Trump has tens of millions of supporters and count that as some kind of collateral."

It would be the greatest achievement for creative financing in the history of money!!!

Hats off if he can make that one work.

take a look at his public company. No revenue, only guesses at what it will be, and the market cap is $3 billion. Ticker DWAC. Money out of thin air. Trump can do that.

Fat hurts wrote:

agip wrote:

take a look at his public company. No revenue, only guesses at what it will be, and the market cap is $3 billion. Ticker DWAC. Money out of thin air. Trump can do that. 

Good point.  But this is such an obvious con. The SEC might not even let it go through:

Link:seekingalpha.com/article/4480878-sec-a...

And if it does, people are already saying the stock will take a massive dive when the merger happens.

So could DWAC save the Trump Organization from bankruptcy?  I don't think lenders would accept his stock as collateral.  Too risky.  He would need to liquidate his position, which would be really tricky.

agip wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Good point. But this is such an obvious con. The SEC might not even let it go through:

Link:seekingalpha.com/article/4480878-sec-a...

And if it does, people are already saying the stock will take a massive dive when the merger happens.

So could DWAC save the Trump Organization from bankruptcy? I don't think lenders would accept his stock as collateral. Too risky. He would need to liquidate his position, which would be really tricky.

Is it a con? $3 bn for a media company led by a guy who can ask for money from his fans and get if for free, with no cost of goods? Sounds ok to me.