• 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.
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Good Job Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

She wasn't a public official. She was a private citizen, just like you or me. Sorry that Goldman Sachs is more interested in hearing from her than you.

Bearjewpiter said:
Fair. But the principle is still the same.
Click to expand...

Fine. Then actually work on making it harder for corporations to effect elections than getting pissed that Hillary took the free money and gave a rah rah speech.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Good Job Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...
Player hating: not a good look.
 
Mr Clutch

Mr Clutch

Member
JesseEwiak said:
She wasn't a public official. She was a private citizen, just like you or me. Sorry that Goldman Sachs is more interested in hearing from her than you.
Click to expand...

I can't ensure bailouts and tax breaks or I'm sure they'd love to hear from me.

Edit: Before you hate me, this was quasi-sarcasm...
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
metalslimer said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's also wildly illogical, because the people who are going to have the best insight about banking industry regulations are people who work in that industry. What does your average politician know about educational administration or hospital infrastructure or the inner workings of a waste water treatment facility? They still need to pass laws to regulate these things, which means they need to bring in experts to help them, but thanks to some paranoid folk on the Internet, that now constitutes a conflict of interest! The only people who are fit to pass judgment are the ones without experience, apparently.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Mr Clutch said:
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)
Click to expand...

When you ask Sander's a "how" question, he folds faster than Superman on laundry day. That combined with his complete inability to connect with the most important caucuses in the party made it pretty easy for me to support Clinton over him.
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
pigeon said:
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!
Click to expand...

This is "rich washing" if I ever saw it. hahaha! I have not problem with the rich as long as they are not pouring millions of dollars into (legally) bribing politicians and buying elections to pass laws that favor them.

They are just exercising their free speech!
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Mr Clutch said:
I can't ensure bailouts and tax breaks or I'm sure they'd love to hear from me.

Edit: Before you hate me, this was quasi-sarcasm...
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware Hillary Clinton had mind control powers over the President and the entirety of Congress when it came to legislation.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
Man guccifer hates Clinton. Seriously though, if it's one peraon, and I doubt it is, he's done a lot of damage to the Clinton campaign.
 
A

Abinash117

Member
Atomic Playboy said:
It's also wildly illogical, because the people who are going to have the best insight about banking industry regulations are people who work in that industry. What does your average politician know about educational administration or hospital infrastructure or the inner workings of a waste water treatment facility? They still need to pass laws to regulate these things, which means they need to bring in experts to help them, but thanks to some paranoid folk on the Internet, that now constitutes a conflict of interest! The only people who are fit to pass judgment are the ones without experience, apparently.
Click to expand...

No wonder people support Donald Trump!
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
Xe4 said:
Man guccifer hates Clinton. Seriously though, if it's one peraon, and I doubt it is, he's done a lot of damage to the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

Meh. Nothing here is particularly new or stuff that people with a brain didn't know about already.

The DNC favoring Clinton and colluding with the media to drive a certain narrative? what a surprise! /sarcasm.
 
T

thestopsign

Member
Good Job Bob said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can say the same about any entertainer. She essentially was an entertainer while making these speeches. She was a private citizen not beholden to any public office and was free to make money as she pleased. If people were willing to pay her speaking fees, she has no reason not to earn that money.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
Blastoise said:
Speeches and appearance fees seem like a good way to mask bribes.
Click to expand...

Her speaking fees line up with fees paid by the same companies to other people with the same levels of fame. Should Hillary accept less than Lance Armstrong just because she used to be in political office?
 
A

Atomic Playboy

Member
boiled goose said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, let's go with that. If she was a politician leveraging her ability to influence legislation, that's clearly a conflict of interest. Was she? Was she introduced as "Hillary Clinton, future President of the United States of America, and friend of bankers *wink* *wink*"? I'm guessing they probably didn't, since she wasn't actively running for President at the time. She was a private citizen. A very well-known private citizen, being a former first lady and former Senator from New York. But she wasn't a politician at the time. Or is "politician" like a scarlet letter that means someone can no longer return to a truly private life accepting money from certain sources any more?

I'm hung up on the implication that there was ever any implied quid pro quo arrangement in her speech. You make the assumption and then act as though it's an established fact. You are basing that off nothing. And that which you have presented without evidence, we can dismiss without evidence.
 
S

saltypickles

Neo Member
boiled goose said:
Meh. Nothing here is particularly new or stuff that people with a brain didn't know about already.

The DNC favoring Clinton and colluding with the media to drive a certain narrative? what a surprise! /sarcasm.
Click to expand...

Yeah how dare the DNC plan out their strategy for winning the general election with the candidate that was most obviously going to win the nomination. Bernie "Women fantasize about being raped" Sanders was clearly going to pull the upset victory from under her nose, if only it wasn't for that meddling Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
 
J

Jenov

Member
Hillary Clinton is super fucking famous. Her name recognition is on par with some of the most famous of Hollywood and worldwide politicians. So of course she's going to be paid big bucks for speaking, and she's not the first person to do so.

100-200k+ for a speaking job (and yes, it is a job to prepare and orate a speech and travel) for someone of her caliber isn't surprising. And lol that anyone thinks that a bank paying a mere 200k for a speech would equate to some sort of bribe or influence when she receives just as much for giving speeches to the freaking Boys and Girl clubs, Hospitals, and Colleges. Gimme a break.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Also Obama will likely be getting paid millions decades from now for his speeches. Are we to assume he has planned this out for the long term while in office to bankroll him through retirement?

Should he be barred from doing so? Should companies be capped at a certain amount? To me it seems like we should focus on the actions of the people.
 
T

thestopsign

Member
I think the more appalling thing about this whole ordeal is the fact that most people are fine with a random dude illegally hacking into servers and leaking information. I thought most of the standard Redditor's were against company's taking personal information from computers, why is it fine when an individual takes a company's information?
 
G

googleplex

Member
saltypickles said:
Yeah how dare the DNC plan out their strategy for winning the general election with the candidate that was most obviously going to win the nomination. Bernie "Women fantasize about being raped" Sanders was clearly going to pull the upset victory from under her nose, if only it wasn't for that meddling Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
Click to expand...

It's what happens when reality, logic and math collide with fantasies and cults of personalities. Certain people will reach for what ever they can to justify their already made up minds.
 
B

BotoxAgent

Member
Atomic Playboy said:
OK, let's go with that. If she was a politician leveraging her ability to influence legislation, that's clearly a conflict of interest. Was she? Was she introduced as "Hillary Clinton, future President of the United States of America, and friend of bankers *wink* *wink*"? I'm guessing they probably didn't, since she wasn't actively running for President at the time. She was a private citizen. A very well-known private citizen, being a former first lady and former Senator from New York. But she wasn't a politician at the time. Or is "politician" like a scarlet letter that means someone can no longer return to a truly private life accepting money from certain sources any more?

I'm hung up on the implication that there was ever any implied quid pro quo arrangement in her speech. You make the assumption and then act as though it's an established fact. You are basing that off nothing. And that which you have presented without evidence, we can dismiss without evidence.
Click to expand...

Yup. Bernie stans like to huff and puff with no proof....just like Bernie sanders himself continues to push snake oil ideas with no real policy substance. But they just hope to say it enough times and hope it becomes conventional wisdom.
 
S

saltypickles

Neo Member
Prost said:
Hillary Clinton is super fucking famous. Her name recognition is on par with some of the most famous of Hollywood and worldwide politicians. So of course she's going to be paid big bucks for speaking, and she's not the first person to do so.

100-200k+ for a speaking job (and yes, it is a job to prepare and orate a speech and travel) for someone of her caliber isn't surprising. And lol that anyone thinks that a bank paying a mere 200k for a speech would equate to some sort of bribe or influence when she receives just as much for giving speeches to the freaking Boys and Girl clubs, Hospitals, and Colleges. Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

No no no you don't understand she got paid half a million dollars from a community college speaking event, this was CLEARLY a bribe by Big College to make sure she shuts down any reforms to college costs and student debt while she's in office. Why I bet she'll even try to raise costs while in office, that devil!
 
T

thestopsign

Member
Atomic Playboy said:
OK, let's go with that. If she was a politician leveraging her ability to influence legislation, that's clearly a conflict of interest. Was she? Was she introduced as "Hillary Clinton, future President of the United States of America, and friend of bankers *wink* *wink*"? I'm guessing they probably didn't, since she wasn't actively running for President at the time. She was a private citizen. A very well-known private citizen, being a former first lady and former Senator from New York. But she wasn't a politician at the time. Or is "politician" like a scarlet letter that means someone can no longer return to a truly private life accepting money from certain sources any more?

I'm hung up on the implication that there was ever any implied quid pro quo arrangement in her speech. You make the assumption and then act as though it's an established fact. You are basing that off nothing. And that which you have presented without evidence, we can dismiss without evidence.
Click to expand...

I think this best sums up the whole argument here.
 
F

Fat4all

Banned
thestopsign said:
I think the more appalling thing about this whole ordeal is the fact that most people are fine with a random dude illegally hacking into servers and leaking information. I thought most of the standard Redditor's were against company's taking personal information from computers, why is it fine when an individual takes a company's information?
Click to expand...

*passive-aggressive-comment*hahaha!!.
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
Atomic Playboy said:
OK, let's go with that. If she was a politician leveraging her ability to influence legislation, that's clearly a conflict of interest. Was she? Was she introduced as "Hillary Clinton, future President of the United States of America, and friend of bankers *wink* *wink*"? I'm guessing they probably didn't, since she wasn't actively running for President at the time. She was a private citizen. A very well-known private citizen, being a former first lady and former Senator from New York. But she wasn't a politician at the time. Or is "politician" like a scarlet letter that means someone can no longer return to a truly private life accepting money from certain sources any more?

I'm hung up on the implication that there was ever any implied quid pro quo arrangement in her speech. You make the assumption and then act as though it's an established fact. You are basing that off nothing. And that which you have presented without evidence, we can dismiss without evidence.
Click to expand...

There is evidence for money influencing politicians though. The aggregate evidence is indisputable. Are you saying quid pro quo must be proved and therefor you are ok with citizens united? Are you saying that systematic racism doesn't exist because it is impossible to prove any given hiring decision one way or the other?

Hey, if she donated to charity all of her speaking fees and all the money she made from them then that would be a start. I didn;t know I was going to come back to public life and thus I must donate this money to manage the conflict of interest. That's a good start. That said, I still have a problem with former politicians getting paid for their services once they leave office. Such is the revolving door.

saltypickles said:
Yeah how dare the DNC plan out their strategy for winning the general election with the candidate that was most obviously going to win the nomination.
Click to expand...

Hey, if this is what they were doing all along then come clean! Now that the primary is over folks are openly admitting this. When the election is going on Sanders supporters get accused of being conspiracy theorists for saying the DNC is not neutral and favoring Clinton.
I'm not going to quote that second sentence. WTF???
 
S

sonicmj1

Member
boiled goose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are they paying her speaking fees because she has the "ability to influence legislation" as a private citizen who did not hold political office at the time? Or are they paying her speaking fees because she's been polled as the most admired woman in America for 14 years running, making her entitled to speaking fees in line with other A-list celebrities?

Unless Wall Street was giving her something that the many other organizations who paid her to speak did not, it's hard for me to figure out why she'd be beholden to them based on a fulfilled business transaction.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
boiled goose said:
There is evidence for money influencing politicians though. The aggregate evidence is indisputable. Are you saying quid pro quo must be proved and therefor you are ok with citizens united? Are you saying that systematic racism doesn't exist because it is impossible to prove any given hiring decision one way or the other?

Hey, if she donated to charity all of her speaking fees and all the money she made from them then that would be a start. I didn;t know I was going to come back to public life and thus I must donate this money to manage the conflict of interest. That's a good start. That said, I still have a problem with former politicians getting paid for their services once they leave office. Such is the revolving door.



Hey, if this is what they were doing all along then come clean! Now that the primary is over folks are openly admitting this. When the election is going on Sanders supporters get accused of being conspiracy theorists for saying the DNC is not neutral and favoring Clinton.
I'm not going to quote that second sentence. WTF???
Click to expand...

So essentially you really just have an issue with her making a bunch of money as her donating the money back wouldn't mean anything in terms of influence.
 
A

ArjanN

Member
kirblar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It's basically the equivalent of paying Beyonce to show up at your birthday party.

Totally non-shocking,
 
L

lenovox1

Member
boiled goose said:
What amazes me though is that so many on gaf are totally fine with politicians having the ability to become multi millionaires by getting paid by the very same industries they are supposed to regulate.
Click to expand...

She was a private citizens for four years, my dear. As an intelligent public figure with ties to politics, public speaking was her gig. What should she have done? Restart her law practice? And why is it truly important?
 
B

boiled goose

good with gravy
sonicmj1 said:
Are they paying her speaking fees because she has the "ability to influence legislation" as a private citizen who did not hold political office at the time? Or are they paying her speaking fees because she's been polled as the most admired woman in America for 14 years running, making her entitled to speaking fees in line with other A-list celebrities?

Unless Wall Street was giving her something that the many other organizations who paid her to speak did not, it's hard for me to figure out why she'd be beholden to them based on a fulfilled business transaction.
Click to expand...

That is why it is called a conflict of interest....:/

Look at the sources of her speaking fees
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...d-hillary-clinton-22-million-in-speaking-fees

The large majority of them come from corporations that lobby government. It really isn't that hard to see the problem here...

lenovox1 said:
She was a private citizens for four years, my dear. As an intelligent public figure with ties to politics, public speaking was her gig. What should she have done? Restart her law practice? And why is it truly important?
Click to expand...

She could have done many things...
I personally see taking such fees from the industries you were supposed to (and will be supposed to ) regulate as clearly unethical and a conflict of interest.

Why is it truly important? Well because, Dear, data clearly shows that the corrupting influence of money in politics is extremely detrimental to average Americans (and the world at large)

I think I've made my points and views here. Have something pressing that you want me to answer feel free to PM me. :p

Ishan said:
Former politicians getting paid is a problem for you ? Jesus . Person is important and famous hence makes money . Way of life . Deal with it .

Edit also if you think something as small as 250k can buy you influence in us politics you've no idea what you're talking about that shit is chump change for companies
Click to expand...

Yes it is a problem for me. It depends how they "get paid" and by whom. Deal with it? Nah. I am free to try to change it.
Oh 250k is definitely chump change for corporations. BUT, it definitely can buy you influence. Politicians are cheap. The return on investment in lobbying activities and political donations is HUGE. Do some research. Educate yourself. Many studies look at this.
 
I

Ishan

Junior Member
boiled goose said:
There is evidence for money influencing politicians though. The aggregate evidence is indisputable. Are you saying quid pro quo must be proved and therefor you are ok with citizens united? Are you saying that systematic racism doesn't exist because it is impossible to prove any given hiring decision one way or the other?

Hey, if she donated to charity all of her speaking fees and all the money she made from them then that would be a start. I didn;t know I was going to come back to public life and thus I must donate this money to manage the conflict of interest. That's a good start. That said, I still have a problem with former politicians getting paid for their services once they leave office. Such is the revolving door.



Hey, if this is what they were doing all along then come clean! Now that the primary is over folks are openly admitting this. When the election is going on Sanders supporters get accused of being conspiracy theorists for saying the DNC is not neutral and favoring Clinton.
I'm not going to quote that second sentence. WTF???
Click to expand...


Former politicians getting paid is a problem for you ? Jesus . Person is important and famous hence makes money . Way of life . Deal with it .


Edit also if you think something as small as 250k can buy you influence in us politics you've no idea what you're talking about that shit is chump change for companies
 
G

googleplex

Member
lenovox1 said:
She was a private citizens for four years, my dear. As an intelligent public figure with ties to politics, public speaking was her gig. What should she have done? Restart her law practice? And why is it truly important?
Click to expand...

I guess she should have moved to Vermont, sold out to the Gun Lobby and then sit on her hands for 20 years in the Senate I guess.

Oh! And not have a vagina.
 
N

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
She's one of the most powerful women on the planet. She commands a large speaking fee, she probably takes a lot of people with her to these things.

They pay it.

Could give a shit less... rich people are rich... nothing released so far changes my opinion of her in the slightest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Intel Alder lake source code may have been leaked
17
3K
Jim Ryan other Clone replied
The Mysterious "Organization 1" - WikiLeaks role
19
2K
Arkage replied
Capcom hit by ransomware attack, is reportedly being extorted for $11 million
Drama Game Dev
22
3K
Northeastmonk replied
  • Locked
Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone admits contact with Guccifer 2.0
2
60
8K
riotous replied
How Alleged Russian Hacker Teamed Up With Florida GOP Operative
18
6K
Gattsu25 replied
Top Bottom