Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1181324

Whelp missed that, thanks!

 

[disastermouse]

I'm sorry that I'm disappointed that people who should know better are resorting to low grade silly attacks like, "Hillary is a corporate tool!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!"

1. Working with corporations doesn't make you inherently evil.
2. The one released text from a Hillary speech with Goldman Sachs was with regards to exhorting Goldman to help finance more women in business.
3. Nothing wrong with accepting money to give a speech. It's easy money, why not take it?

There's more to the critique than 'Hillary is a corporate tool!'

1. I'm a Marxist. 'Nuff said.
2. Video of the speech where she blamed homeowners for the crash.
3. What sort of position do you have to be in, politically, socially, etc. that Goldman is offering you multiple thousands of dollars to speak at their events?

 

[Black Mamba]

Not making much predictions today. Obviously, it would be weird if Bernie lost, only the margin matters. I think Hillary wants to get 40%+.

Trump losing would be a bit surprising too, considering his margins and that Rubio's momentum is likely stalled.

I'm curious to see how many voters waste a vote on Carson/Fiorina. Obviously, the battle for 2-6 is pretty large and really anyone could take that.

 

[Y2Kev]

Trump come on!!!!

I can't even contain my excitement for the victory speech.

 

[User 406]

This is worth posting, even for the picture alone.

Not a progressive.

Someone in the NH thread asked if there's a good election tracking app out there right now.

IS THERE?

Yes, it's called Cookie Clicker, and it just got a huge update yesterday. Just open it, start clicking, and when you look up, the election will be over and you'll know who won the Presidency.

Posted in the OT thread, the war against machines has begun and Rubio supporters are leading the fight.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/02/09/marco-rubio-supporters-robot-incident-new-hampshire-primary/

That's dangerous, Rubio supporters just use the same juggle combo over and over again.

 

[RustyNails]

Not making much predictions today. Obviously, it would be weird if Bernie lost, only the margin matters. I think Hillary wants to get 40%+.

Trump losing would be a bit surprising too, considering his margins and that Rubio's momentum is likely stalled.

I'm curious to see how many voters waste a vote on Carson/Fiorina. Obviously, the battle for 2-6 is pretty large and really anyone could take that.

Didn't get your take on RoboRubio malfunction. What do you think?

 

[Sirpopopop]

There's more to the critique than 'Hillary is a corporate tool!'

1. I'm a Marxist. 'Nuff said.
2. Video of the speech where she blamed homeowners for the crash.
3. What sort of position do you have to be in, politically, socially, etc. that Goldman is offering you multiple thousands of dollars to speak at their events?

2. She also went in on Wall Street on the same video.
3. They'll get anyone to speak at these events. Even the likes of Lou Holtz.

 

[benjipwns]

3. What sort of position do you have to be in, politically, socially, etc. that Goldman is offering you multiple thousands of dollars to speak at their events?

The likely next President?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

2. Video of the speech where she blamed homeowners for the crash.

That's basically a lie, and I've pointed it out already.

In a five-bullet list of different factors that caused the crash, she mentioned homeowners fourth, and then only those who specifically bought beyond their means. It was a side comment where she primarily blamed mortgage lenders and summed up by saying Wall Street accelerated the crisis.

I get it, you're a Marxist and you want the closest thing running to win. But support your guy without lying, please.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Bernie's indictment of Wall Street:

Now, who's exactly to blame for the housing crisis? Well, that's always a question that the press and people ask and I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

Responsibility belongs to mortgage lenders and brokers, who irresponsibly lowered underwriting standards, pushed risky mortgages, and hid the details in the fine print.

Responsibility belongs to the Administration and to regulators, who failed to provide adequate oversight, and who failed to respond to the chorus of reports that millions of families were being taken advantage of.

Responsibility belongs to the rating agencies, who woefully underestimated the risks involved in mortgage securities.

And certainly borrowers share responsibility as well. Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads. Speculators who were busy buying two, three, four houses to sell for a quick buck don't deserve our sympathy.

But finally, responsibility also belongs to Wall Street, which not only enabled but often encouraged reckless mortgage lending. Mortgage lenders didn't have balance sheets big enough to write millions of loans on their own. So Wall Street originated and packaged the loans that common sense warned might very well have ended in collapse and foreclosure. Some people might say Wall Street only helped to distribute risk. I believe Wall Street shifted risk away from people who knew what was going on onto the people who did not.

Spoiler

It's actually Hillary.

 

[benjipwns]

Somebody forgot Alan Greenspan.

I get it, you're a Marxist and you want the closest thing running to win. But support your guy without lying, please.

Gloria La Riva will be on at least two ballots.

Mimi Soltysik might get on three.

 

[ctothej]

Why does Five Thirty Eight give Trump only a 69% chance of winning in their pulls-plus? With his ~15 point lead, wouldn't the NH polling have to be stunningly, impossibly terrible for Trump to get a loss?

Edit: Just a heads up, Clinton shares on Predictit are 67c right now for the dem nomination. I don't imagine they'll get any lower, even if Bernie wins by a large margin tonight.

 

[ugaboga232]

The real problem with the speeches is not that its an overt bribe or that hillary is evil or whatever. I think her answer at the debate is the real answer, they offered her money for an easy gig and she took it and thats that. I doubt she thinks it impacts her votes and I think it doesn't overtly do it.

However, humans do not work like that. As you can see in this thread and throughout the world, you consider people differently if they are in your in group or out group (tribalism). I'm sure hillary felt great getting lots of money and attention and awe from very smart people. These things can subtly change opinions. Everyone does it is not a good reason for doing something also. It's a conflict of interest which is a legit problem for one of the most powerful positions in the world. And the real problem was never these companies or the existence of the financial system, its the twisted model of success and incentives that is heavily concentrated in finance but also in a lot of other fields. Getting paid a ton for a fluff speech (i doubt she said anything bad in them) is really a symptom of the crazy system of money and power walking hand in hand and makes me question if Hillary realizes the depth of the problem.

 

[Black Mamba]

Didn't get your take on RoboRubio malfunction. What do you think?

Well, it seems as if the major media networks have played it up, right? And that hurt him. Will it hurt him enough to not get 2nd? I don't know. If he fails to get 2nd, the media story will be both Trump winning and Rubio's debate disaster costing him the election.

If it's Trump-Kasich-Bush-Rubio or something like that, Kasich might even be a throwaway with the headlines. Hilariously, I can see a Rubio comes in 3rd and wins Iowa vs Rubio comes in 3rd and is the NH biggest loser dichotomy happening.

If Rubio places 2nd, the narrative will be Rubio is fine, he will eventually be the nominee.

It's hard for me to predict what that performance did to him. Short term, it probably hurt and unfortunately, he's still in the short term. Long term it might not have mattered. It was pretty stupid on his part. I mean, I'd like to say it's election-ending, but voters are weird.

 

[Nazgul_Hunter]

That's dangerous, Rubio supporters just use the same juggle combo over and over again.

Marco Rubio is a button smasher and he smashes the same buttons

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, it's true that one can be scrupulous enough to receive large amounts of money without it influencing the contents of your thoughts, speeches and actions. You may think this is an unusual thing for me to argue, but thankfully, Clinton should be quite happy to back me up on this by releasing the full transcripts of said speeches; after all, there's nothing there to be ashamed of.

 

[Black Mamba]

I mean, it's true that one can be scrupulous enough to receive large amounts of money without it influencing the contents of your thoughts, speeches and actions. Thankfully, Clinton should be quite happy to back me up on this by releasing the full transcripts of said speeches; after all, there's nothing there to be ashamed of.

Do such transcripts exist?

 

[disastermouse]

The real problem with the speeches is not that its an overt bribe or that hillary is evil or whatever. I think her answer at the debate is the real answer, they offered her money for an easy gig and she took it and thats that. I doubt she thinks it impacts her votes and I think it doesn't overtly do it.

However, humans do not work like that. As you can see in this thread and throughout the world, you consider people differently if they are in your in group or out group (tribalism). I'm sure hillary felt great getting lots of money and attention and awe from very smart people. These things can subtly change opinions. Everyone does it is not a good reason for doing something also. It's a conflict of interest which is a legit problem for one of the most powerful positions in the world. And the real problem was never these companies or the existence of the financial system, its the twisted model of success and incentives that is heavily concentrated in finance but also in a lot of other fields. Getting paid a ton for a fluff speech (i doubt she said anything bad in them) is really a symptom of the crazy system of money and power walking hand in hand and makes me question if Hillary realizes the depth of the problem.

This. No one thinks Hillary is doing 'pay to play' or trading money for votes. No one thinks it's that simple.

Her milleau consists of the wealthy and she identifies with wealthy values. Not all of those are bad, per se, but they put her out of touch with the working class and poor (and probably a lot of the 'middle class').

Also, the neuroscience guy's POV is relevant here, for sure.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I thought they were already out there. That snippet I posted was from one, so I thought.

 

[Diablos]

Any last minute NH polls? Come on Trump!

Also I'd love to see Obama's former campaign steamroll whoever the hell is on team Hillary. I'm not sure why they didn't do that to begin with.

Lol @ Jeb now disowning SuperPACS. 😂 Poetic, really.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do such transcripts exist?

I mean, give how much her campaign has talked about not releasing them, one would assume so. If not, she needs better staff.

 

[CCS]

I mean, it's true that one can be scrupulous enough to receive large amounts of money without it influencing the contents of your thoughts, speeches and actions. You may think this is an unusual thing for me to argue, but thankfully, Clinton should be quite happy to back me up on this by releasing the full transcripts of said speeches; after all, there's nothing there to be ashamed of.

Come on Crab, that's a false attack and you know it. Any candidate in the world releases dozens of speeches that were given to a particular group away from the press, and there's going to be something incriminating in there. Hell, look at some of the stuff that's been dug up that Corbyn said in the past for an example.

 

[ugaboga232]

Do such transcripts exist?

Yea she hired professional stenographers for the speeches (from what I've read).

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This. No one thinks Hillary is doing 'pay to play' or trading money for votes. No one thinks it's that simple.

Her milleau consists of the wealthy and she identifies with wealthy values. Not all of those are bad, per se, but they put her out of touch with the working class and poor (and probably a lot of the 'middle class').

That's why she blames the wealthy for the financial crisis.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Speech transcripts are like birth certificates for the left.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Come on Crab, that's a false attack and you know it. Any candidate in the world releases dozens of speeches that were given to a particular group away from the press, and there's going to be something incriminating in there. Hell, look at some of the stuff that's been dug up that Corbyn said in the past for an example.

It's not false because I have criticised Corbyn for this too (particularly re: Stop the War). Speeches given to donors should be public knowledge; to hold otherwise allows for gross conflict of interest.

 

[CCS]

It's not false because I have criticised Corbyn for this too. Speeches given to donors should be public knowledge; to hold otherwise allows for gross conflict of interest.

Then why are you only calling for Hillary's speech transcripts to be released? Why not every other candidate's too?

 

[disastermouse]

That's why she blames the wealthy for the financial crisis.

Now she does. And it's not that she doesn't see the transgressions, it's just that I don't believe that they particularly bother her morally.

She gets paid for being 'excellent' and feels that she deserves it. It's hard for her to think that about herself and not extend the favor to associates who are also paid well.

 

[disastermouse]

Then why are you only calling for Hillary's speech transcripts to be released? Why not every other candidate's too?

"All transcripts matter!"

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Then why are you only calling for Hillary's speech transcripts to be released? Why not every other candidate's too?

She is the only other candidate on the Dem side. The Republicans should do it too, but I'm less concerned with the Rep side as I think they'll lose either way. It's also just obviously true some speeches matter more than others - Sanders took $1,871 in speaking fees in 2015 and donated all the proceeds to charity, so it's at least reasonably safe to assume he is at less risk of conflict of interest.

 

[kirblar]

Now she does. And it's not that she doesn't see the transgressions, it's just that I don't believe that they particularly bother her morally.

She gets paid for being 'excellent' and feels that she deserves it. It's hard for her to think that about herself and not extend the favor to associates who are also paid well.

Do you inherently have an issue with people being paid large sums of money, period?

 

[CCS]

"All transcripts matter!"

Are you seriously comparing transcripts of speeches to black people being shot dead by police? Wow. Just wow.

She is the only other candidate on the Dem side. The Republicans should do it too, but I'm less concerned with the Rep side as I think they'll lose either way.

That's an odd sort of moral relativism.

 

[ugaboga232]

That's why she blames the wealthy for the financial crisis.

It's more subtle than that, its that at the very heart of it, hillary probably thinks the very basic status quo/system is ok. Sure civil rights are complete shit but thats more a perversion of the system than the system itself.

Are you seriously comparing transcripts of speeches to black people being shot dead by police? Wow. Just wow.



That's an odd sort of moral relativism.

I think they are both calling out the use of the, but there are other people doing it too argument. We know the republicans are all laughably corrupt, the question is now on hillary (not really being laughably corrupt but how much does this conflict of interest matter).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not false because I have criticised Corbyn for this too (particularly re: Stop the War).

Speeches given to donors should be public knowledge;

to hold otherwise allows for gross conflict of interest.

She wasn't running for office. This type of demand is creepy for the idea public officials can never do anything private if they have or will in the future run or hold office.

 

[Retromelon]

I ran into a familiar name in a game I was playing and I decided to abandon any pretense of dignity and plea for my pet cause

im starting to think it wasnt even her

 

[disastermouse]

Do you inherently have an issue with people being paid large sums of money, period?

Not at all. I do think that beyond a certain point, though, that it's just a way of keeping score and when those outsized incomes and resource hoarding activities deprive people on the lower end of the scale from basic human dignity (health care is a dignity issue) and meaningful lives, it's a problem.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Now she does. And it's not that she doesn't see the transgressions, it's just that I don't believe that they particularly bother her morally.

She gets paid for being 'excellent' and feels that she deserves it. It's hard for her to think that about herself and not extend the favor to associates who are also paid well.

She did in the speech that you keep bringing up. In 2007.

Jesus, man, keep denying reality.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's an odd sort of moral relativism.

That's bullshit and you know it. There's no moral relativism, I think everyone ought to do it, but there's no point in lobbying a side that will never, ever do it whereas I like to think Clinton has the basic respect for voters that Republicans lack and therefore might choose to release her speeches so that they might know her scrupulous nature.

 

[Wilsongt]

I ran into a familiar name in a game I was playing and I decided to abandon any pretense of dignity and plea for my pet cause

im starting to think it wasnt even her

What server?

 

[disastermouse]

Are you seriously comparing transcripts of speeches to black people being shot dead by police? Wow. Just wow.



That's an odd sort of moral relativism.

Yes. That's exactly what I was doing. I'm a monster! /s

 

[CCS]

That's bullshit and you know it. There's no moral relativism, I think everyone ought to do it, but there's no point in lobbying a side that will never, ever do it whereas I like to think Clinton has the basic respect for voters that Republicans lack and therefore might choose to release her speeches so that they might know her scrupulous nature.

Speeches made when she wasn't running for President? How far back should this go?

Yes. That's exactly what I was doing. I'm a monster! /s

If you weren't then what was the point of that complete non-sequitur?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

She wasn't running for office. This type of demand is creepy for the idea public officials can never do anything private if they have or will in the future run or hold office.

Fuck off. This is not public officials never doing anything private, this is public officials accepting more money than a minimum wage worker would make in 1,018 years from a group very tightly concerned with the legislative process. If it was a Republican candidate doing it you guys would all be calling them out. Instead you're all sitting here pretending your shit smells like roses.

 

[disastermouse]

She did in the speech that you keep bringing up. In 2007.

Jesus, man, keep denying reality.

Is she for breaking up the banks so it doesn't happen again? Not really.

She's wrist-slappin' with the best of them! "Stop being naughty, you fine American Bankers! *wink*"

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Speeches made when she wasn't running for President? How far back should this go?

As long as we're releasing transcripts, I demand to see her marks from primary school. Did she get a "Needs Improvement" in Conduct because she kept hogging the monkey bars at recess? The public deserves to know.

 

[benjipwns]

Can she release any handwritten poems she may have written in the last 67 years?

Especially any she wrote to Bill. And any he wrote back.

Spoiler

Now I kinda want these.

 

[Makai]

Jeb panicked and wanted to go home.

 

[disastermouse]

Speeches made when she wasn't running for President? How far back should this go?



If you weren't then what was the point of that complete non-sequitur?

Humor, it's a thing. You should look into it. It makes lives better!

 

[RastaMentality]

Fuck off. This is not public officials never doing anything private, this is public officials accepting more money than a minimum wage worker would make in 1,018 years from a group very tightly concerned with the legislative process. If it was a Republican candidate doing it you guys would all be calling them out. Instead you're all sitting here pretending your shit smells like roses.

Ted Cruz's wife worked at Goldman Sachs (the most conflict of interest possible) and you don't see people here mentioning it that often. I doubt people would care much for speeches either.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

As long as we're releasing transcripts, I demand to see her marks from primary school. Did she get a "Needs Improvement" in Conduct because she kept hogging the monkey bars at recess? The public deserves to know.

Haha, almost reminds me of this:


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/were-just-kidding/

 

[ugaboga232]

Ted Cruz's wife worked at Goldman Sachs (the most conflict of interest possible) and you don't see people here mentioning it that often. I doubt people would care much for speeches either.

Because no one in this thread likes cruz at all and know hes going to lose the nomination most likely and would 99% lose the GE with his crazy views. We know where hes coming from.