boiled goose
good with gravy
One of those lobbies government for tax breaks and deregulation.
Guccifer releases DNC dossier on Clinton
- Thread starter Maiden Voyage
- Start date
- Status
One of those lobbies government for tax breaks and deregulation.
BlastProcessing
Member
It's hard to tell sometimes. Crazy as it sounds, there have been posts like yours that were 100% serious. Poe's Law and all that.
JesseEwiak
Member
FDR & LBJ were two of our richest President's. Didn't seem to hurt their ability to help the little man.
You realize you're linking to a rabid conservative tabloid owned by the guy who runs Fox News, right?
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
Requirements for her speaking presence. Didn't she once say that she just takes what they offer?
Based on previous event planning experience, I don't think fees like this are uncommon among a certain group of high-profile people.
lastflowers
Banned
It's just business, can't you see!
JesseEwiak
Member
Sorry, unless Hillary flew on Spirit, she's corrupt!
There is a specific agency/company that works with ex-Pres/Secs/etc to set up these gigs.
Already Torn
Banned
Isn't that fair considering she was the actual Democratic candidate, has a history of working with DNC members, and didn't go around condemning DNC members for supposed corruption? I don't see the problem unless the DNC actually rigged the election against Bernie somehow (maybe with superdelegates if Bernie had won the larger number of pledged delegates). Surely the deck was also 'stacked against' Obama from the start in '08?
Also, the NY Post is gross.
Illithid Dude
Member
So the big scandal here is that in order for Hillary to speak she requires that her and her staff are flown out and put in nice accommodations?
That's like, the most normal thing ever.
That's like, the most normal thing ever.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with making money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using celebrity status to make money.
The problem isn't her. It's you and all the others trying to claim a ridiculous moral high ground.
FYI, when those letters were sent Bernie was polling single digits.
One of the other letters was before he even entered.
if she started to murder children in broad daylight that might be bad
Already Torn
Banned
Condemning Muslims or other forms of overt racism, climate change denying, or any anti-science nonsense.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
People who like money should not be allowed to be president, obviously.
metalslimer
Member
I mean why exactly does it have to be she's either an angel or some monstrous corrupt demon? She isn't perfect and has multiple policies I disagree with. We can talk substantially about her views on Israel or marijuana legalization for instance. Instead of that were treated to arguments unrelated to her actual policy with broad insinuations with no proof.
EatinOlives
Member
In what way is speaking about diversity in the workforce (among other nondescript topics) and charging a fee for it while out of office meant to color her policy making? You can't simply shout "conflict of interest!" any time two entities are doing business with one another. That's not how it works. This isn't a revolving door, where the policymakers put in their positions to regulate industries are then later directly hired by said companies in that specific industry.
You do know nearly every single president and influential politician makes millions charging for public speaking, yeah? You say you have no issues specifically with Hillary, but apparently specifically with Hillary this is especially problematic.
Mr Clutch
Member
So then, what stops you from supporting Sanders over her? or do you now support Hill bc Sanders is out? (And before it begins, I get that he's out...no longer a chance)
What about soliciting double digit millions from Saudi royals?
Already Torn
Banned
I initially enjoyed both candidates in different ways but quickly soured on Bernie shortly after the Nevada stuff. It made me see his entire campaign in a different light, and it only got worse from there to the point where I'm glad he didn't win in retrospect.
Nah
Mr Clutch
Member
No, its more about the continued defense of her actions I am seeing. I'm voting Dem no matter who that is, but I do not like most of the lies she or her camp has found themselves caught up in and it seems those who supported her from the get go tend to brush off occurrence after occurrence.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Just saying "conflict of interest" doesn't explain the wild leap of logic you are making to get from "she received money for a service" to "she will vote in their favor." How far down this rabbit hole do you go? If someone received speaking fees from a company, they're beholden to that company? What about a regular salary? Can someone be a former employee of a company and still be unbiased? Do unpaid internships count? If someone has political aspirations, are they allowed to work for anyone, or does that risk forming a relationship that might create bias in their hypothetical political future? What about politicians who lose an election? Do they have to avoid returning to the private sector, as that will inevitably introduce bias should they run for office again? Every single person on Earth forms relationships, personal and professional, and those relationships are bound to have an impact on how they make decisions. You can't expect someone to be completely free from that; that is literally asking for politicians to be "not human." It's an absurd standard to hold somebody to, and people are being dismissive of it for that very reason.
Freezie KO
Banned
I don't have a specific policy suggestion. Maybe someone does though?
You don't go from being the most powerful person in the world to a completely private person divorced from politics when your term is up. You know exactly who's going to pay up when you're doing them favors while in office. There's just not a hard line there.
I don't think it helps to deflect a real problem just because Hillary is particularly vulnerable on this issue. This dates back to Ford and Reagan, and these speaking fees have only grown to astronomical heights.
Boombloxer
Member
eBay Huckster
Member
Am I beholden to Big Canada for working on Parliament Hill a few years back?
I was okay with Sanders before he went full boy who cried wolf with his fraud shouts, stated that it wasn't his place to know about world events because he was running for president, and continued to attack the party he was trying to lead.
Abinash117
Member
I guess it has something to do with corps influencing people with money to talk favorably about the corporation and the corporation is getting something in return like influence or something.
Mr Clutch
Member
Even if (and I'm not saying this is the case) that these docs allude to some sort of collusion among the DNC and Hills camp and maybe Bern was right?
Do they force you to listen to Rush?
eBay Huckster
Member
No, they just force me to watch curling occasionally and eat poutine.
I'm kidding. I don't need to be forced to eat poutine.
VendettaRed07
Member
Right.. but Hillary is not a former politician, because she's seeking office. Ex Presidents can do what they want because who cares. But that isn't the case here.
This is an issue that needs addressing honestly. We have people show tax returns for a reason as well. I think going forward if we can't outright ban politicians from doing speeches, maybe going forward there should be a rule where all the transcripts from these events they do should be made public.
Mr Clutch
Member
Yeah the world events comment always irked me. As President it is very important to know whats going on when you are THE power holder in the World.
Her stance on the death penalty currently is a strike against her in my book as well as marijuana but again it's just a couple facets of many things to consider. No candidate is ever going to match 1:1 with everyone's opinions so it is what it is.
PeskyToaster
Member
can't wait to listen to this on rush
metalslimer
Member
Different people post if different threads. I think its helpful to specifically speak on certain policies rather than broad statements. And if there has been a broad defense of her part of it may because She's been under attack for over 20 years by the right on every minor issue.
Sub_Level
wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Already Torn
Banned
As I've said, I think it's pretty intuitive that the DNC would favor Hillary at the start of the race, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was similar stuff floating around at the start of '08. One of the main appeals of the Sanders campaign was that he was an underdog. Unless we saw some actual evidence that the system was rigged against him somehow? But it never came to that because Hillary won the primary pretty handily without any backdoor shady deals. We also have evidence that in situations where Bernie was crying out against corruption (Nevada) the blame was placed squarely on him.
I guess if you really wanted to you could argue that the initial Super Delegate counts adversely affected everything after the first few primary's because it made people think it was already over. But again, that's what Sanders knew he was up against by going from Independant to Democrat, and what Obama overcame in '08. It would be interesting to reevaluate the super delegate system in like a year or so, but when you focus your entire campaign on changing it in the middle of a primary cycle after you lose all hope of winning, it strikes me as bitter rather than constructive.
I heard there was a videotape of her using the word "whitey." If that's true, it would hurt my support.
More seriously, like, there are a bunch of things I don't like about Hillary already. I think her foreign policy isn't great, she does a bunch of dumb stuff for no reason, even that she panders too much.
There are just a lot of things I also do like about her, like that she's strongly motivated to get the support of the Democratic coalition, that she has demonstrated for years that she's very invested in improving the lives of Americans, and that she has a ton of experience and knowledge to do so.
The fact that she takes speaking fees or gets large donations doesn't really change those things.
I understand that it's cool to uncritically hate and fear the rich, but I basically don't? They're just like everybody else, except with more money. That's the whole point of the inequitable nature of the capitalist system, they are not fundamentally different from you or I because the system is mostly chance! So the fact that Hillary is rich or that rich people want to give her money doesn't bother me that much or make me immediately distrust her. You can be rich and still want to do good things!
BrutishMrFish
Member
Her campaign would have to make shit up about a meeting with a group of AIDS activists and then make more shit up when they attempt to correct her press statement regarding the content of said meeting.
In all seriousness, I really don't like her stance on Israel.
Mr Clutch
Member
This is true. I wasn't generalizing all Hill supporter, just from what I see. I never once saw Hill supporters as the enemy, I didn't agree with them and felt (and still do) that the candidate I supported was better for us, but at the same time, I respected Hill supporters passion and dedication/loyalty.
metalslimer
Member
Maybe if they are running for office again, but why should private citizens be forced to consign this once their time in public office is up. It leads to a terrible rabbit hole. Should anyone who ever works on banking legislation be barred from working at a bank?
Try again, maybe?
Obviously people working at the DNC would say that the nominee would be HRC. Everybody thought HRC would win. She had every possible advantage and all the structural forces were in her favor. And, in fact, she did win!
The fact that people at the DNC believed that Hillary would win does not constitute evidence that they colluded to make her win.
Atomic Playboy
Member
Retroactively? So 22-year-old Obama giving a speech to other aspiring lawyers better make sure to hang onto a copy of it because he's going to have to produce it someday if he ever decides to run for President in two decades? That seems like a pretty onerous burden to place on anyone, and for literally no payoff. Because if you make that the standard, all you realize is that career politicians are great at giving speeches that are nothing but fluff and platitudes.
Good Job Bob
Member
Yup, there is absolutely nothing fundamentally concerning about a public official like Hillary making more money than low wage workers could make in hundreds of years in private speeches to big finance groups. Hillary has to eat too after all.
PalaceBrother
Member
I saw him speak in October and was amazed at how polished, "off the cuff" and well-spoken he was. I'm sure every gesture is scripted, but he was a terrific speaker. As a non-American, I was surprised.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Strawman arguments.. how do they work? haha WTF
Still waiting for an actual argument why this isn't a conflict of interest.
Did Hillary as a Senator not vote on financial regulation?
Will Hillary as president not push for and sign laws relevant to the financial services industry???
It is a PERFECT example of conflict of interest.
This is a weird slippery slope logical fallacy like argument. Let's for the sake of argument the standard lies somewhere in between. If you do a job and get paid a proportionate amount for said job, then it is hard to object to that.
If you are a politician leveraging your ability to influence legislation to become a fucking multi millionaire, then yeah, that is a problem.
It's not that difficult people.
We can say a carrot is not conscious and a rock is not living pretty easily. Conversations regarding cognition or what counts as a living organism at the edges require more nuanced discussions.
bobbychalkers
Member
Guccifer is wasted on a hacker name....Dude should be a DJ.
- Status