Support NeoGAF

[Kite]

Clinton got paid 6 figures to give speeches like Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs at Goldman Sachs.. oh the scandal lol All ya'll conspiracy nuts want dem transcripts, well start taking notes. Good luck, it nearly put me to sleep.

 

[Already Torn]

The University I work at just had Bill Clinton as our commencement speaker. I guess he owes me favors now?

You're what's wrong with American politics.

 

[googleplex]

Clinton got paid 6 figures to give speeches like Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs at Goldman Sachs.. oh the scandal lol All ya'll conspiracy nuts want dem transcripts, well start taking notes. Good luck, it nearly put me to sleep.

Littlegirleatingcrackers.gif

 

[Crocodile]

When I was a kid, I learned that when I was making an affirmative assertion, the onus was on me to prove it was true, not for others to prove me false. Have people been learning something different nowadays? Has the art of argument deteriorated that much?

 

[FyreWulff]

Trump may be racist but he'll be racist FOR America. I can't support Hillary.

the mental hoops on display here have twisted themself into a mental mobius strip. For some reason the line of thought traced on the surface always leads back to your own ass

 

[lenovox1]

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...



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.

I'm glad you made your points as they remain as unfocused and untargeted as they started.

These companies could have gained no leverage in the polictical system through paying the Clintons to talk at their private functions while Hillary was a private citizen.

Your particular argument is an argument based on a "what if" not a "what is," and your what if is rooted in the worst possible scenario. A scenario where she just knew she'd be president and shored up money for favors because through that knowledge.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

The speeches are a red herring.

Clinton Foundation "donations" from Saudi Royals (known for their generosity) and EU lobbyists are much more offensive to me.

Is anybody else even reading the files for themselves?

Everybody ignored your post but youre right.

Idk what the heck I'm gonna do...on one side you have Hillary and the other the lunatic. What am I supposed to do? Worst 2 noms in history IMO

 

[yongeandcollege]

Just a heads up - the speaking fee is also high because they have to pay for their Secret Service detail.

If you have to roll a whole army of vehicles, personel, and security measures just to leave your neighborhood, the floor price to get you to come out is gonna be pretty high.

I thought that former first ladies have secret service for life regardless of whether or not they give talks.

 

[kirblar]

When I was a kid, I learned that when I was making an affirmative assertion, the onus was on me to prove it was true, not for others to prove me false. Have people been learning something different nowadays? Has the art of argument deteriorated that much?

People are bad and believe the first thing they hear. That's why going on offense works in politics.

 

[Jenov]

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.

Soooo you want to make a law against private citizens being able to make money off their fame? Just in case there's "bribes" hidden in these fame seeking jobs? And just in case said citizen might become a politician in the future?

 

[Zackat]

the mental hoops on display here have twisted themself into a mental mobius strip. For some reason the line of thought traced on the surface always leads back to your own ass

That post is full of sarcasm. Come on gaf you better than this.

 

[Suikoguy]

The speeches are a red herring.

Clinton Foundation "donations" from Saudi Royals (known for their generosity) and EU lobbyists are much more offensive to me.

Is anybody else even reading the files for themselves?

So let me get this right:

You expect Clinton to give favors to Saudi Royals and EU Lobbyists because they donated to a foundation that has done documented humanitarian work?

Everybody ignored your post but youre right.

Idk what the heck I'm gonna do...on one side you have Hillary and the other the lunatic. What am I supposed to do? Worst 2 noms in history IMO

You might want to look at past nominations if you think Clinton is worst nomination in history of any kind.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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.

If I was looking for evidence of systemic racism in hiring practices (per your example), I'd start by analyzing patterns; do people with ethnic sounding names get called in for interviews at a lower rate, are minority applicants given lower-salary offers for identical positions, things like that. So if we're looking for evidence that Hillary was being unduly influenced by certain industries, we could look for patterns. Like, was she receiving disproportionate sums from banking clients versus other organizations? Well, that doesn't seem to be the case. Her speaking fees were largely unvaried whether talking to major banks, non-profit organizations, educational institutions... that pattern doesn't support the claim that she would be more beholden to the financial industry than any other sector. Is there some other pattern you can identify that would indicate some measure of collusion?

And as long as we're going full conspiracy theory here, if Clinton was really getting massive funding to support hidden banking industry regulations, then why on Earth would they tie that to a public speaking event which is getting reported to the IRS? They could move billions around in ways you would never know about, but they're so brazen with their corruption that they put it into files they know their future candidate is going to voluntarily disclose to the entire world? That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Little Nemo]

Serious question for HillGAF here:

IF the DOJ were to indict her on RICO charges and failing to secure classified information, would you still continue to support her or do you believe she should drop out?

Just hypothetically speaking. Not interested in arguing whether it's likely or possible or not. I'm just curious how far you guys are willing to go to support her?

 

[lastflowers]

William Gaddis was right all along...

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Serious question for HillGAF here:

IF the DOJ were to indict her on RICO charges and failing to secure classified information, would you still continue to support her or do you believe she should drop out?

Just hypothetically speaking. Not interested in arguing whether it's likely or possible or not. I'm just curious how far you guys are willing to go to support her?

She would literally be ineligible to run at that point. So, uh, what? The reason so many people support her is because she didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

So let me get this right:

You expect Clinton to give favors to Saudi Royals and EU Lobbyists because they donated to a foundation that has done documented humanitarian work?

.

One section of a dossier on the Clinton Foundation's "vulnerabilities" is titled "What We Don't Know" and includes questions such as "How Much Of Mrs. Clinton's Travel Was Funded By The Saudis?" and whether Clinton actually donated the bulk of her speaking fees to the foundation, as she has previously claimed.

Yet another document listed the Clintons' extensive use of private jets funded by corporations and other groups, with potentially problematic trips and their costs highlighted.

those 2 quotes are just from the washington examiner article. I haven't even read the leak yet.

 

[pigeon]

Serious question for HillGAF here:

IF the DOJ were to indict her on RICO charges and failing to secure classified information, would you still continue to support her or do you believe she should drop out?

Just hypothetically speaking. Not interested in arguing whether it's likely or possible or not. I'm just curious how far you guys are willing to go to support her?

Sure, why not? After she beats Trump she can just pardon herself.

I think the idea of the DOJ hitting Hillary with RICO is about the dumbest thing I've heard today and I had three meetings already, so it's hard for me to take this seriously.

She would literally be ineligible to run at that point. So, uh, what? The reason so many people support her is because she didn't do anything wrong.

Wait, who says? The Constitution says that the president must be removed from office if they commit high crimes or misdemeanors. I don't see anything that says you can't run for office and win while being indicted or indeed as a felon.

 

[Already Torn]

Serious question for HillGAF here:

IF the DOJ were to indict her on RICO charges and failing to secure classified information, would you still continue to support her or do you believe she should drop out?

Just hypothetically speaking. Not interested in arguing whether it's likely or possible or not. I'm just curious how far you guys are willing to go to support her?

I would be mad that they waited so long to do it and would be worried that this would allow Trump to win the presidency if they didn't make a major change, such as putting forward a different candidate. I would feel the same way if it she was arrested for killing a man after a drug deal gone wrong at a racetrack, hypothetically speaking.

 

[metalslimer]

Serious question for HillGAF here:

IF the DOJ were to indict her on RICO charges and failing to secure classified information, would you still continue to support her or do you believe she should drop out?

Just hypothetically speaking. Not interested in arguing whether it's likely or possible or not. I'm just curious how far you guys are willing to go to support her?

Obviously I would want her to drop out. I would still vote for her if she was the nominee over trump though. You could actually address the topic at hand though instead of making broad insinuations

 

[Suikoguy]

.

those 2 quotes are just from the washington examiner article. I haven't even read the leak yet.

Concerns ≠ Actual Issues

It's due diligence to prepare for any political attacks.

 

[pgtl_10]

There's a lot of nuance to uncover on the leaks regarding media and dnc favoritism of Clinton.

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.



If you don't see a difference between public figures who aren't politicians getting paid, giving commencement speeches, and becoming a multi millionaire by getting paid by the industries you are supposed to be regulating then i don't know what to tell you...

I agree with sentiment and believe political figures should be restricted. Speaking engagements can be latent bribes.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

So, fields in which Hillary Clinton isn't allowed to work.

• Speech Circuit
• Any Large Corporations
• Charitable Foundations
• Law Firms that may represent Bad Guys

Anything else I'm missing?

 

[SilentRob]

Everybody ignored your post but youre right.

Idk what the heck I'm gonna do...on one side you have Hillary and the other the lunatic. What am I supposed to do? Worst 2 noms in history IMO

I find it utterly and completely dumbfounding how anyone who is not a plain racist could have a hard time deciding between the two.

Vote for the one who doesn't want to ban 1/5th of the entire world population from entering your country because of their religious beliefs. It's really not that hard of a choice.

 

[Version 3.0]

ITT I learned that former and/or future politicians are not allowed to have jobs.

"Industries they are supposed to regulate" would be...every single industry. I work for a casino right now. If I run for office, that means I'm in the pocket of the gambling industry, right?

Or is it only if I'm a consultant? Or is it only if they pay me a lot?

You'd think with hacked documents, someone with an agenda could come up with more than "she makes a lot of money from speeches". Hillary must be pretty damn clean.

The only issue I see here is the hack itself. Get your tech together, Clinton.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I find it utterly and completely dumbfounding how anyone who is not a plain racist could have a hard time deciding between the two.

Vote for the one who doesn't want to ban 1/5th of the entire world population from entering your country because of their religious beliefs. It's really not difficult.

One is corrupt, the other is a racist blowhard. I dont feel comfortable voting for either at the moment. There's still plenty of time for Hilldog to win me over tho.

Concerns ≠ Actual Issues

It's due diligence to prepare for any political attacks.

oh i see... so they were preemptive defense on possible ammo for repubs. Sigh, I guesssss.

 

[Barzul]

Somebody brought up RICO, really? Clinton took advantage of her name and reputation to make money as a private citizen. Nothing wrong with that aand I'm certain a majority of people posting in this thread would do the same thing if given the opportunity.

 

[Jenov]

I agree with sentiment and believe political figures should be restricted. Speaking engagements can be latent bribes.

It's a good thing we already have laws that any current serving politicians cannot receive speaking fees! Phew.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-ad-ignores-fact-members-congress-ca/

"Senators and representatives have been prohibited from accepting money for speeches since 1991. Before then, members of Congress would often accept speaking fees from the industries they oversaw, which critics characterized as a form of bribery.

And it's not just members of Congress. In the House, for example, even senior staff can't be paid for speeches, appearances or writing an article. Junior staff also can't do it if the topic relates to their official duties.

The executive branch has a similar ban.

But once a person leaves government service, those rules no longer apply, and they're free to charge for speeches."

So I guess what you really want to do is restrict private citizens from making money if they happen to be famous? Because that's where you're heading with this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

For the cost of booking Clinton, you could book Tom Cruise to speak or show up last I checked. Private citizens can charge big for whatever. Also Mike Meyers charged up to $250k+ in 2014 to show up at your party. What.

She's a brilliant woman with decades of political experience she should be worth more than Tom Cruise speaking, let alone showing up.

 

[TheCrow]

I find it utterly and completely dumbfounding how anyone who is not a plain racist could have a hard time deciding between the two.

Vote for the one who doesn't want to ban 1/5th of the entire world population from entering your country because of their religious beliefs. It's really not that hard of a choice.

Seriously. As the son of illegal immigrants the big decision for me is whether I yell fuck trump or yasss queen after voting. I'm currently leaning towards yasss queen.

 

[wachie]

Trump is a lying, stealing, racist, misogynist ratbag. Hillary made a lot of money from speeches.

Another nail in the coffin.

Pretty much.

 

[pigeon]

ITT I learned that former and/or future politicians are not allowed to have jobs.

"Industries they are supposed to regulate" would be...every single industry. I work for a casino right now. If I run for office, that means I'm in the pocket of the gambling industry, right?

Or is it only if I'm a consultant? Or is it only if they pay me a lot?

The funniest part of this line of argument is that, if you follow it to its logical conclusion, the only people who can run for office are people who were born independently wealthy in the first place, because that way they've never had to hold down a job.

The Founding Fathers would be proud. We're back to just having landowners run the joint!

 

[Good Job Bob]

Player hating: not a good look.

I don't hate the player, I hate the game.

I am not interested in making this about the supposed personal failings of Hillary. I just think it is generally a good thing that people are skeptical about the role of money and wealth in politics. I don't think people should be indulging in full blown conspiracy theories, or making positive claims about politicians being directly influenced without solid evidence. But a healthy dose of skepticism and calls for politicians to be transparent whenever large sums of money and powerful interest groups are involved seems right to me. And while I understand why people are so quick to rush to Hillary's defense given what is at stake this year, I hope that none of these arguments people are making in her defense undermine the important progressive cause of curbing the role wealth plays in politics.

 

[googleplex]

It's a good thing we already have laws that any current serving politicians cannot receive speaking fees! Phew.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-sanders-ad-ignores-fact-members-congress-ca/

So I guess what you really want to do is restrict private citizens from making money if they happen to be famous? Because that's where you're heading with this.

Only the ones they don't like. Or the ones that have the audacity to run against the few politicians they do like.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

"These companies wouldn't have paid all of this money if they didn't expect something in return!"

I mean, yeah. They expected speeches. That seems kind of straightforward.

 

[Imperfected]

I can't imagine why the Saudis would give money to the candidate that isn't spitting rhetoric that could lead to an all-out war with Muslims.

Must be about the oil.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Everybody ignored your post but youre right.

Idk what the heck I'm gonna do...on one side you have Hillary and the other the lunatic. What am I supposed to do? Worst 2 noms in history IMO

Well there was the several decades when both candidates believed in human bondage.

 

[Jenov]

Only the ones they don't like. Or the ones that have the audacity to run against the few politicians they do like.

Which is extra funny when you realize that now Bernie Sanders himself can demand some pretty hefty speaking and appearence fees after all of the fame of this election. lol

 

[FyreWulff]

I thought that former first ladies have secret service for life regardless of whether or not they give talks.

they do

they still have to pay for it.

fun fact: they even have to make it two terms as president to be able to buy insurance under one of the federal employee health insurance programs. so carter and hw bush don't get access to that

 

[Parshias7]

If Hillary Clinton's private speeches come with the implication that she'll change federal law in the future to benefit the organization she's giving the speech to then she's doing some pretty shitty negotiating to be getting the same speaking fees as Guy fucking Fieri.

Then again, maybe Guy Fieri drops his super secret recipe for killer hot wings in each of his speeches to it evens out.

 

[pigeon]

I don't hate the player, I hate the game.

I am not interested in making this about the supposed personal failings of Hillary. I just think it is generally a good thing that people are skeptical about the role of money and wealth in politics. I don't think people should be indulging in full blown conspiracy theories, or making positive claims about politicians being directly influenced without solid evidence. But a healthy dose of skepticism and calls for politicians to be transparent whenever large sums of money and powerful interest groups are involved seems right to me. And while I understand why people are so quick to rush to Hillary's defense given what is at stake this year, I hope that none of these arguments people are making in her defense undermine the important progressive cause of curbing the role wealth plays in politics.

Frankly, I think that the arguments people have been making for the last year pitting class concerns against intersectional concerns are much more likely to do that.

 

[sprsk]

All the effort to prove something that was more or less public anyway.

Goos job guys lol.

 

[lastflowers]

I can't imagine why the Saudis would give money to the candidate that isn't spitting rhetoric that could lead to an all-out war with Muslims.

Must be about the oil.

War aint nothing but a way of making more money and killing more of the undeserved

 

[kingslunk]

People should've voted for Bernie.

 

[Alucrid]

People should've voted for Bernie.

people did vote for bernie

 

[JesseEwiak]

People should've voted for Bernie.

"Nah I think there's more to the story. He asks her out for coffee obviously hinting he's attracted to her. She declines but later gives him her phone number in a large group to keep in touch? I feel like there's holes in the story."

 

[Beer Monkey]

People should've voted for Bernie.

White people did.

 

[IrishNinja]

always knew speeches was where it's at, but goddamn...and this doesn't even look like it's outta line for that crowd. can't knock the hustle

When is the purity test?

based on a few responses in here, it's clearly ongoing

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!

that's because those dots got connected when we went into Iraq on bullshit/cherry-picked intel, and the conflicts of interest - that cheney & his wife have had a history of - became readily apparent

what about these shows such a conflict? has her voting record been soft specifically on issues regarding these corporations, especially since said speeches even? if the claim you're pushing here is legit, it shouldn't be hard to tell

People should've voted for Bernie.

some did, thankfully not too many

if this strikes you as a "smoking gun", be grateful that bernie never got anywhere near the microscope of a GE candidate...based on the foolishness he'd clearly say/cosign, it wouldn't have been pretty

 

[stonesak]

Will the VRWC ever give up?

 

[kingslunk]

"Nah I think there's more to the story. He asks her out for coffee obviously hinting he's attracted to her. She declines but later gives him her phone number in a large group to keep in touch? I feel like there's holes in the story."

Hey there dysfunctional unrelated to topic poster.