Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Each year, UBS — the Swiss financial services giant best known in the U.S. for paying $1.5 billion to settle charges it rigged the Libor benchmark interest rate — hosts a “Global Media & Communications Conference.” 2014’s conference took place last December at the Westin Hotel in midtown Manhattan.

At one presentation, a UBS analyst asked Sir Martin Sorrell, head of the London-based lobbying and advertising mega-firm WPP Group, if he foresaw anything noteworthy for WPP’s future financial prospects.

Yes, responded Sorrell: “2016 should be a bumper year as Hillary Clinton wins the election here.”…….

Some consulting firms involved with the 2016 race are required by the federal Lobbying Disclosure Act to disclose their clients, because they engage in direct lobbying of legislative and executive branch officials. BGR Group lobbyist Jonathan Mantz is guiding the fundraising for Priorities USA, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, while simultaneously lobbying for interests such as Comcast, Chevron, the Republic of India, the Kurdish Regional Government and the Thai Royal Embassy. Similarly, Glover Park Group’s Susan Brophy has fundraised for Ready for Hillary while serving as a paid representative of JPMorgan Chase, Verizon and the Egyptian government of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Mercury LLC, the firm from which both Christie and Walker have recruited campaign operatives, represents firms including Sallie Mae, eBay, Alcoa, Air Canada and as of last month, the Qatari government. (Pierre Omidyar, founder of The Intercept’s parent company, First Look Media, is the chairman of eBay.)

However, firms such as the Glover Park Group, which solely engage in “astroturf” lobbying — the organizing of grassroots groups on behalf of corporate interests — are not required to disclose their clients.

Speaking recently with The Hill, uber-lobbyist Tony Podesta predicted that “whoever the next president is will not maintain the lobbyist ban” instituted by President Obama — a ban, he noted, that has already crumbled under the weight of numerous exemptions and waivers. It’s not hard to see that happening, given that the shadow campaigns are already managed by lobbyists.

JohnStOnge wrote:Meh. I'll vote and all and I'll be happy if the tide is slowed some for some time by something like getting a Republican President along with Republican control of both houses of Congress. Not so much because I love the Republicans all that much but it'd slow down the rate of damage Democrats have been doing to the long term health of the system over the past century or so.

The problem is that the basic character of the population has degraded and all indications are that the degradation will continue. So the country will continue to degrade as well. The proportion of the population that will do something like, for instance, vote for somebody like Barack Obama to be President is increasing. Slowing the Democrats down for a few years won't change the long term trend.

It's a critically sick culture and it's going to get nothing but sicker.

DSUrocks07 wrote:I'm sitting here wondering at what point in the future when the current "national government" gets abolished and several regional federal governments are formed with a confederacy framework for NATO like defense purposes.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Meh. I'll vote and all and I'll be happy if the tide is slowed some for some time by something like getting a Republican President along with Republican control of both houses of Congress. Not so much because I love the Republicans all that much but it'd slow down the rate of damage Democrats have been doing to the long term health of the system over the past century or so.

The problem is that the basic character of the population has degraded and all indications are that the degradation will continue. So the country will continue to degrade as well. The proportion of the population that will do something like, for instance, vote for somebody like Barack Obama to be President is increasing. Slowing the Democrats down for a few years won't change the long term trend.

It's a critically sick culture and it's going to get nothing but sicker.

That's all fine and dandy, but who are you throwing your money behind?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

DSUrocks07 wrote:I'm sitting here wondering at what point in the future when the current "national government" gets abolished and several regional federal governments are formed with a confederacy framework for NATO like defense purposes.

ok

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but who are you throwing your money behind?

Rand Paul

Understands what every sane person knows,...

...but our current incompetent POTUS doesn't...

...actions have consequences.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:
Rand Paul

Understands what every sane person knows,...

...but our current incompetent POTUS doesn't...

...actions have consequences.

I would vote for Paul before Hilary.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I would vote for Paul before Hilary.

And you would vote for that political vagabond Gary Johnson before either of them. (Chizzang Jill Stein post in 3-2-1....)

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
I would vote for Paul before Hilary.

And you would vote for that political vagabond Gary Johnson before either of them. (Chizzang Jill Stein post in 3-2-1....)

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's all fine and dandy, but who are you throwing your money behind?

...actions have consequences.

JohnStOnge wrote:Meh. I'll vote and all and I'll be happy if the tide is slowed some for some time by something like getting a Republican President along with Republican control of both houses of Congress. Not so much because I love the Republicans all that much but it'd slow down the rate of damage Democrats have been doing to the long term health of the system over the past century or so.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Meh. I'll vote and all and I'll be happy if the tide is slowed some for some time by something like getting a Republican President along with Republican control of both houses of Congress. Not so much because I love the Republicans all that much but it'd slow down the rate of damage Democrats have been doing to the long term health of the system over the past century or so.

No fucking thank you. That would be as big of a clusterfuck as it was when the donks had control of all three branches in Obama's first term.