• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Guccifer releases DNC dossier on Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.

boiled goose

good with gravy
I think it's funny that people think Clinton is in the pocket of "Big Finance" for getting paid a lot for speaking arrangements when, by that same logic, she would also be in the pocket of "Big Camping" and "Big Girl Scouts".

One of those lobbies government for tax breaks and deregulation.
 
While this is true, there's something to be said for the gap between ordinary people and absurdly rich people when it comes to actually caring about fixing problems. If one side cannot relate, it's hard to form trust. If one side is making $44 million for speaking, they cannot relate to the struggles of those low on the social ladder. Privilege, etc. The bigger the gap, the bigger the disconnect. Whether this is 100% scientific fact is debatable, but as far as perception? It's truth.

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?
 

mcfrank

Member
IpDAgCi.gif
 
D

Deleted member 465307

Unconfirmed Member
Requirements for her speaking presence. Didn't she once say that she just takes what they offer?

ClfDwNzWIAAQm9H.jpg:large

Based on previous event planning experience, I don't think fees like this are uncommon among a certain group of high-profile people.
 
Pedestrian business transaction? Bs. It's like you dont understand conflict of interest at all!.

The revolving door is not a problem to you when Republicans do it either?
Cheney getting paid by haliBurton? Totally fine? Politicians getting paid by fossil fuel industry denying climate Change?

Totally fine!

It's just business, can't you see!
 
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.
 
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.
 

kirblar

Member
From lobby groups and corporations they helped out while they were in power.

Take Hillary out of the equation. She wasn't the first person to get rich after leaving office. Regardless of Hillary, this is a problem we should talk about.
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.
 

Mr Clutch

Member
Posing a serious, non-hostile or argumentative question here, but what WOULD it take for you to see Hillary in a bad light?
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
That people get paid lots money when they are not politicians? I mean I don't know how exactly you want to fix this problem besides barring any politicians from ever making large amounts of money.

People who like money should not be allowed to be president, obviously.
 
Posing a serious, non-hostile or argumentative question here, but what WOULD it take for you to see Hillary in a bad light?

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.
 
Umm. How is this not conflict of interest??

Stop projecting your bias onto me. I have no issues specifically with Hillary. I have voted for her in the past and will likely vote for her in November.

I call out bs when i see it. I dont give Democrats a pass because Republicans are worse

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
Condemning Muslims or other forms of overt racism, climate change denying, or any anti-science nonsense.

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)
 
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)
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.

What about soliciting double digit millions from Saudi royals?
Nah
 

Mr Clutch

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 had multiple policies I disagree with.

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.
 
Umm. How is this not conflict of interest??

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.
 
That people get paid lots money when they are not politicians? I mean I don't know how exactly you want to fix this problem besides barring any politicians from ever making large amounts of money.

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.
 
She keeps laying traps for herself like this. She needs to stop.

No, the place that reps her have a bunch of folks at that level with those same commitments. it's no different than booking Jay-Z for a concert, everyone has their preferences.
 

Wilsongt

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)

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.
 
I really don't understand it either. Is the idea that the speech prices are inflated to cover hidden donations/bribes?

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
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.

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?
 
That people get paid lots money when they are not politicians? I mean I don't know how exactly you want to fix this problem besides barring any politicians from ever making large amounts of money.

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
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.

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.
 

studyguy

Member
Posing a serious, non-hostile or argumentative question here, but what WOULD it take for you to see Hillary in a bad light?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
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.
 

pigeon

Banned
Posing a serious, non-hostile or argumentative question here, but what WOULD it take for you to see Hillary in a bad light?

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!
 
Posing a serious, non-hostile or argumentative question here, but what WOULD it take for you to see Hillary in a bad light?

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
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 

kirblar

Member
If you're getting paid 200K to give a copy/pasted speech and hang out at a party for a few hours, wouldn't you take the cash?

They're paying her for her time. Her time is worth a lot of money because she's in demand.
 

pigeon

Banned

I don't really get why people think it's somehow proof of collusion that people at the DNC believed, just like everybody with any knowledge believed and just as things actually turned out, that Hillary was guaranteed to win the nomination.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
Bush 2 had made a nice chunk of change out of giving speeches, also.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom