|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 16 2016 17:46 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 15:27 Soularion wrote:On April 16 2016 15:17 JW_DTLA wrote:On April 16 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:On April 16 2016 06:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2016 06:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how the media has questioned the wisdom/optics of Bernie going to the Vatican to speak about a moral economy but not the wisdom/optics of Hillary leaving NY to have a fundraiser in CA where it costs $33,000 just to get inside, and $350k for prime seating on the same day.
That, to me, is the essence of their differences. Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich. Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers. Please, continue making this argument. I will continue, thanks. What's wrong with that picture according to you? This argument reveals the deep perception biases of the Berners. Bernie and Clinton are doing the same thing. Both are raising money. That Clinton sometimes raises money in high dollar dinners is a distinction with no difference. // I am CnC Well, no, they aren't. What Bernie is against isn't getting -all- money out of politics, it's getting -corporate- money out of politics. I suspect a majority of Berners dislike Clinton less for getting money and more because she gets money from the big banks, possibly from the oil & gas industry, etc. and then turns around and says how she's gonna crack down on these industries. How would that affect Bernie at all? How would Bernie be 'corrupted' by the same people who vote for him? People are suspicious about Clinton because her source is different from her voters and might have different goals with that money especially when Clinton and those sources don't align ideologically - bribery becomes a concern - and this is made a LOT worse by Clinton's constant refusal to release the transcripts and events such as the white noise machine. Your argument makes no sense, at all. They are not doing the same thing. Bernie is raising money from civilians who are likely going to/would vote for him. This is how campaigns always have been. Clinton is raising a ridiculous amount of money from corporations WHICH ISN'T EVEN THE PROBLEM. The problem is that people question how Clinton can be trusted to be on the right side of these issues when she's taking so much money from the industries that she's going to have to regulate, and I think that's an entirely valid question. Now, if Clinton were to release her transcripts and show that they're legitimate critiques of the problems in those indutsries and Berners still went after her.. that'd be stupid. But that hasn't happened, so it's still a valid question which Clinton keeps dodging which only makes her look worse. Just to give a simple addition: Bernie betraying his views for money is literally impossible because the money comes from people who support his views. Hillary betraying her views for money is more possible because of her general shadiness, because of her history of being on the other side of these issues, and because the industries are quite clearly against the stances she has. Doesn't mean she won't be a good president - I think she'll be great if she does everything she says she will, and mediocre if she doesn't - but it means that liberals question her on these issues while they have no reason to question Sanders. Understandable, albeit some take it too far. You know Corporations can't make direct donations to candidates right? When you see lists showing "Alphabet" as a top donor that means that a lot of Googlers just happened to make donations to a candidate. There is no corporate money in direct donations to candidate committees. Check out the top donors for the 2016 cycle in direct candidate committee donations as grouped by organization. You guys are assuming Corruption with Clinton because you like Bernie. The list of donors doesn't show it. You don't have any evidence of these assumptions of Wall Street and Big Energy Corrupting Hillary. This is just stuff you hear from other Berners and then repeat it because you would like it to be true. However, from the data I have reviewed, it looks like lawyers hate Bernie and love Clinton (I am a lawyer). Hillary https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f&src=cUniversity of California $356,836 Emily's List $302,336 Morgan & Morgan $281,801 Paul, Weiss et al $232,684 DLA Piper $225,343 Alphabet Inc $224,817 Morgan Stanley $222,177 Corning Inc $218,050 Stanford University $217,524 ... Bernie https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528&cycle=2016&type=f&src=cAlphabet Inc $254,814 University of California $139,633 Microsoft Corp $95,296 Apple Inc $85,576 Amazon.com $63,385 US Postal Service $59,368 Kaiser Permanente $56,363 US Navy $52,803 Boeing Co $47,206 AT&T Inc $41,983 Intel Corp $41,855 ...
You realize Hillary is using a loophole so that she can coordinate with her superPACs as well though right?
And these pro-Clinton super PACs are intimately linked.
Two of them — American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record — share space in a Washington, D.C., office building at 455 Massachusetts Ave. NW — “its exquisite interior is appointed with materials of the finest quality,” building developers boast.
Federal records show all four super PACs regularly shuttle millions of dollars in cash and resources among themselves. This means an initial, anonymous contribution to one super PAC can flow through any of the rest before it’s finally used to help Clinton.
Consider the $1 million Priorities USA Action gave Correct the Record in December. Correct the Record, in turn, gave American Bridge 21st Century $400,000 later that month.
Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record, which is pushing legal boundaries by coordinating many of its efforts directly with Clinton’s campaign, have even formed a federal joint fundraising committee called American Priorities 16, a vehicle that allows the two groups to more seamlessly solicit donations and swap resources.
No tie binds these groups closer than Brock, the Clinton ally who either leads or has advised or assisted them all. The irony here is rich: Brock publicly hounded the Clintons during the 1990s before transforming himself from an unabashed conservative into a blue-streaked liberal.
Brock is also involved with several nonprofit organizations friendly to Clinton’s cause, such as Media Matters for America, which tracks conservative communications, and the American Independent Institute, which funds journalism exposing “the nexus of conservative power in Washington.”
Source
|
On April 16 2016 15:17 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:On April 16 2016 06:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2016 06:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how the media has questioned the wisdom/optics of Bernie going to the Vatican to speak about a moral economy but not the wisdom/optics of Hillary leaving NY to have a fundraiser in CA where it costs $33,000 just to get inside, and $350k for prime seating on the same day.
That, to me, is the essence of their differences. Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich. Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers. Please, continue making this argument. I will continue, thanks. What's wrong with that picture according to you? This argument reveals the deep perception biases of the Berners. Bernie and Clinton are doing the same thing. Both are raising money. That Clinton sometimes raises money in high dollar dinners is a distinction with no difference. // I am CnC
It's hard to take you seriously when your argument is that people react the same way to people who give them over 100k$ as they react to people who give them 27$ in average.
|
On April 16 2016 11:11 ETisME wrote:
I don't quite understand how Sanders plan to tackle Wallstreet and then go on doing huge plans like free tuitions etc
Tax on the rich will not be enough to sustain that amount of policies he is proposing imo. Especially when rich are often the ones who hire consultant to reduce tax payment.
The tax burden imo will inevitably fall hardest on the middle class.
I am surprised he wants to bring manufacturing back to the US. How can the US compete against the much cheaper labor cost? The only exception will be very capital intense industry which probably are already in the US or EU and will mostly be heavily automatic production lines.
Imo the job creation should come from building infrastructures and spending on the less developed area. Not only will jobs help to resolve the economic issue locally, it can also deal with the social issues that it seems to on the rise recent years.
You're right. In The Netherlands the highest income tax rate is 52% for everything you make over 50k. The average income tax rate is 40%. Add to that 21% VAT and a whole lot of other indirect taxes and you'll be shocked at how much tax actualy gets paid.
Bringing back the same amount of jobs from manufacturing isn't going to happen. Fact is that mosy job losses in manufacturing are due to automation and not China.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
look sandernistas are fundamentally suspicious of the rich and the powerful. valid concerns. but they also overly rely on this and the best way i describe it is that there is a lot of simple class hatred directed not only at clinton but also the rich. their distance to power allows this group level engagement.
when they think ofcorruption it is not in relation to any specific dealings but to the simple association clintons have in the cocktail world. it is pretty antiintellectual just in terms of refusal to think with a finer grain on individual cases
|
On April 16 2016 21:05 oneofthem wrote:
look sandernistas are fundamentally suspicious of the rich and the powerful. valid concerns. but they also overly rely on this and the best way i describe it is that there is a lot of simple class hatred directed not only at clinton but also the rich. their distance to power allows this group level engagement.
when they think ofcorruption it is not in relation to any specific dealings but to the simple association clintons have in the cocktail world. it is pretty antiintellectual just in terms of refusal to think with a finer grain on individual cases
Well, I don't think it's anti intellectual, and I don't think the cocktail world is a finer grain of individual people. I think the concern is that the whole Republican party and part of the Democrats are rightfully seen as working for a fraction of the population. The GOP case is simply a scam; it's a party exploiting white resentment for an oligarchy of donors. But when you have a party that is supposed to really represent the working and middle class and that their leaders have completely incestuous relations with Wall Street and big businesses, well, there is a problem. And the reasons it works like that are totally structural to the american political system, and its ludicrous way of being privately financed.
That being said, and where I maybe agree with you, is that Sandernistas are being dishonest there : they accuse Clinton on being corrupt (which is basically right wing propaganda, there is not a single reason to think she is or has ever been), basing their demonstration of the fact she plays american politics by the book. Maybe the book is bad and needs to be changed, but going ad hominem as they do is just dishonest.
And there is a real question left for them: if Bernie wins the primaries, he will have to rely on something else than small donations to win the general elections pretending to ignore the issue and basing your whole campaign in defaming the other candidate for something you will obviously do if you win is for the least problematic.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
claim was failure to look beyond group labels is antiintellectual. fine grain thinking would distinguish say, heidi cruz from gary gensler
|
On April 16 2016 21:23 oneofthem wrote:
that is a fail in reading in the first sentence. please revise.
I'm not a native english speaker. You don't need to be a cock.
EDIT thanks for the clarification, then I agree with you.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
all good im sorry
but look if marx was thinking like the sandernistas he'd have starved somewhere in europe
|
On April 16 2016 20:44 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 11:11 ETisME wrote:
I don't quite understand how Sanders plan to tackle Wallstreet and then go on doing huge plans like free tuitions etc
Tax on the rich will not be enough to sustain that amount of policies he is proposing imo. Especially when rich are often the ones who hire consultant to reduce tax payment.
The tax burden imo will inevitably fall hardest on the middle class.
I am surprised he wants to bring manufacturing back to the US. How can the US compete against the much cheaper labor cost? The only exception will be very capital intense industry which probably are already in the US or EU and will mostly be heavily automatic production lines.
Imo the job creation should come from building infrastructures and spending on the less developed area. Not only will jobs help to resolve the economic issue locally, it can also deal with the social issues that it seems to on the rise recent years. You're right. In The Netherlands the highest income tax rate is 52% for everything you make over 50k. The average income tax rate is 40%. Add to that 21% VAT and a whole lot of other indirect taxes and you'll be shocked at how much tax actualy gets paid. Bringing back the same amount of jobs from manufacturing isn't going to happen. Fact is that mosy job losses in manufacturing are due to automation and not China.
I agree that the production jobs are getting lost to automation, up time of equipment, constant improvements in processes and part design. For example the Swedish based truck manufacturer Scania went from producing 3,3 vehicles per employee 1990 to 6,6 2010. 20 years and double the products per employee while the end product got more complicated due to more IT and sensors on top of previous parts. Similar is true for most of the competitive auto industry companies.
|
On April 16 2016 21:27 oneofthem wrote:
all good im sorry
but look if marx was thinking like the sandernistas he'd have starved somewhere in europe
Well, he certainly made a lot of compromises, although it's hard not to see hypocrisy in his own bourgeois lifestyle..
But anyway, I think there is a really deep question there: America is structurally an oligarchy, because the system gives an absurd amount of political power for whoever can support financially a candidate. If that can be changed, does it needs to be done incrementally from someone that has played by the book, like Clinton, or by someone who arrives abnormally to power without the support of the oligarchy, as Sanders is supposedly trying to do, at least for now?
On top of the fact that Sanders will need the democratic cash machine apparatus for winning the general election anyway, I see another problem, which is that even if Sanders got into power, he would need the houses and the supreme court for doing anything at all about the structural problems of the american political system. That's more than unlikely he would get either's support.
I have been an authentic left winger all my life and now I am defending Clinton against Sanders. I'm probably getting old.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what's the point of using pans here, is it some kind of fashion trend
|
It's because the fundraiser was a "dinner". I suppose it would make more sense if they were pushing catering carts though...
|
Inspired by South American panelazo method of protesting?
|
On April 16 2016 21:23 oneofthem wrote:
claim was failure to look beyond group labels is antiintellectual. fine grain thinking would distinguish say, heidi cruz from gary gensler
this is hilarious coming from you, considering every other post you make in this thread is talking about what bernie supporters do and think, as though they are a single unit, rather than an extremely diverse collection of individuals
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2016 23:13 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 21:23 oneofthem wrote:
claim was failure to look beyond group labels is antiintellectual. fine grain thinking would distinguish say, heidi cruz from gary gensler this is hilarious coming from you, considering every other post you make in this thread is talking about what bernie supporters do and think, as though they are a single unit, rather than an extremely diverse collection of individuals
i've never tried to claim that all bernie supporters are the same. just the sandernistas.
|
Marching around a house for a fundraiser? My favorite part about stories like this is that they don't realize how it makes them look to everyone else. They feel like they're leading a revolution, but their candidate is down 2 million votes and they make fool's of themselves by silly shit like protesting outside a dinner
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/276520-report-sanders-earned-less-in-a-year-than-clinton-in-one
As if this is just the biggest bombshell ever. "hey guys, did you hear Clinton has MONEY? You know, that stuff BANKS HAVE"
The Sanders movement is starting to remind me of social conservatism. As it grows closer to its last dying breath, it only gets less reasonable. I expect the Sanders movement to start robbing banks after Clinton wins new york.
|
She also paid about $10m in taxes while donating $3m to charity but don't let that stop you from thinking she's a terrible person
|
On April 17 2016 03:10 ticklishmusic wrote:
She also paid about $10m in taxes while donating $3m to charity but don't let that stop you from thinking she's a terrible person
But consider this: money is stored in banks. There's no way she could have that much money without using banks. Bail out. Revolution. Transcripts.
|
On April 16 2016 21:05 oneofthem wrote:
look sandernistas are fundamentally suspicious of the rich and the powerful. valid concerns. but they also overly rely on this and the best way i describe it is that there is a lot of simple class hatred directed not only at clinton but also the rich.
It's more of a disagreement. They think the US is no longer a democracy but an oligarchy. You don't seem to agree. I'd say there is a difference between hating the rich because they're rich and hating the rich because they are perceived to press their advantage too much.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 16 2016 17:46 JW_DTLA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2016 15:27 Soularion wrote:On April 16 2016 15:17 JW_DTLA wrote:On April 16 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:On April 16 2016 06:37 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2016 06:23 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 16 2016 06:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love how the media has questioned the wisdom/optics of Bernie going to the Vatican to speak about a moral economy but not the wisdom/optics of Hillary leaving NY to have a fundraiser in CA where it costs $33,000 just to get inside, and $350k for prime seating on the same day.
That, to me, is the essence of their differences. Spare me the paens to Bernie's Purity. The guy has raised $139M and spent $122M. Hillary has raised $159M and spent $129M, but some of it was from big dollar donations and was split with downticket Democrats. Bernie is as much of a money as Free Speech guy as any of them, he just prefers to spend poorer people's money on his speech. Bernie Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $139,810,841 $354,498 $140,165,339 Total Spent $122,599,177 $477,068 $123,076,245 Hillary Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined Total Raised $159,903,968 $62,702,453 $222,606,421 Total Spent $129,068,880 $18,678,936 $147,747,816 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/ The problem isn't that they raise/spend money, it's common knowledge that people donate for preferential treatment (it's the very essence of this dinner Hillary is having). It's that if Bernie is going to pay back his donors, that means improving the lives of the people who sponsored his campaign (common folk donating $20-30) Hillary would do the same, except her donors are the people she's telling us she's going to check. It's simply insensible to believe she's going to do the opposite of what she's done during this Democratic nomination race once she's president and the pressure from the left to do so is somewhat alleviated. Bernie already accepted the financial disadvantage of not having superPACs, Hillary however hasn't despite neither of her leading opponents having one, even though her excuse for hers is to compete against the non-existent ones she's up against. Much like her excuse for not releasing the transcripts it just doesn't even make sense on it's face. Bernie raises $139M -- pure as snow and will "pay back his donors" with college and healthcare by taxing the rich. Clinton raises $159M -- hopelessly tainted by Corruption and Wall Street because she had some expensive fundraisers. Please, continue making this argument. I will continue, thanks. What's wrong with that picture according to you? This argument reveals the deep perception biases of the Berners. Bernie and Clinton are doing the same thing. Both are raising money. That Clinton sometimes raises money in high dollar dinners is a distinction with no difference. // I am CnC Well, no, they aren't. What Bernie is against isn't getting -all- money out of politics, it's getting -corporate- money out of politics. I suspect a majority of Berners dislike Clinton less for getting money and more because she gets money from the big banks, possibly from the oil & gas industry, etc. and then turns around and says how she's gonna crack down on these industries. How would that affect Bernie at all? How would Bernie be 'corrupted' by the same people who vote for him? People are suspicious about Clinton because her source is different from her voters and might have different goals with that money especially when Clinton and those sources don't align ideologically - bribery becomes a concern - and this is made a LOT worse by Clinton's constant refusal to release the transcripts and events such as the white noise machine. Your argument makes no sense, at all. They are not doing the same thing. Bernie is raising money from civilians who are likely going to/would vote for him. This is how campaigns always have been. Clinton is raising a ridiculous amount of money from corporations WHICH ISN'T EVEN THE PROBLEM. The problem is that people question how Clinton can be trusted to be on the right side of these issues when she's taking so much money from the industries that she's going to have to regulate, and I think that's an entirely valid question. Now, if Clinton were to release her transcripts and show that they're legitimate critiques of the problems in those indutsries and Berners still went after her.. that'd be stupid. But that hasn't happened, so it's still a valid question which Clinton keeps dodging which only makes her look worse. Just to give a simple addition: Bernie betraying his views for money is literally impossible because the money comes from people who support his views. Hillary betraying her views for money is more possible because of her general shadiness, because of her history of being on the other side of these issues, and because the industries are quite clearly against the stances she has. Doesn't mean she won't be a good president - I think she'll be great if she does everything she says she will, and mediocre if she doesn't - but it means that liberals question her on these issues while they have no reason to question Sanders. Understandable, albeit some take it too far. You know Corporations can't make direct donations to candidates right? When you see lists showing "Alphabet" as a top donor that means that a lot of Googlers just happened to make donations to a candidate. There is no corporate money in direct donations to candidate committees. Check out the top donors for the 2016 cycle in direct candidate committee donations as grouped by organization. You guys are assuming Corruption with Clinton because you like Bernie. The list of donors doesn't show it. You don't have any evidence of these assumptions of Wall Street and Big Energy Corrupting Hillary. This is just stuff you hear from other Berners and then repeat it because you would like it to be true. However, from the data I have reviewed, it looks like lawyers hate Bernie and love Clinton (I am a lawyer). Hillary https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f&src=cUniversity of California $356,836 Emily's List $302,336 Morgan & Morgan $281,801 Paul, Weiss et al $232,684 DLA Piper $225,343 Alphabet Inc $224,817 Morgan Stanley $222,177 Corning Inc $218,050 Stanford University $217,524 ... Bernie https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000528&cycle=2016&type=f&src=cAlphabet Inc $254,814 University of California $139,633 Microsoft Corp $95,296 Apple Inc $85,576 Amazon.com $63,385 US Postal Service $59,368 Kaiser Permanente $56,363 US Navy $52,803 Boeing Co $47,206 AT&T Inc $41,983 Intel Corp $41,855 ...
Hillary has taken how much money in Wall St. speeches again? And how much in various fundraisers since then?
Now, if you wanna argue that Hillary's Wall St. speeches /obviously/ don't involve her presidential campaign as she wasn't running at the time - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-hiring-2016-campaign-staff-in-new-hampshire/
She started hiring 2016 campaign staff in New Hampshire during early march. Why would she do this if she wasn't planning to run?
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/08/Hillary Clinton Speeches 2013-2015_1.jpg
According to this, her speeches continued going until mid-late March, after she had already hired campaign staff in New Hampshire. Now, if she at any point in her speeches said she was running for president, that's pretty much against the law (I won't dig around the FEC laws for direct quotes because they're like 600 pages long, but I'm fairly certain it is). It's also of questionable legality to even do what she's done, considering her initial excuse for it was 'I didn't know that I was running at the time' way back in the first debate.
In terms of oil & gas industries, you can see that they've given huge donations to the Clinton Foundation which is somewhat suspicious as to whether Clinton will give them favors back or not. However, the bigger question on that issue is that she practically sold fracking to the world as Secretary of State, so why would she regulate it now? This is the core problem that Clinton faces, is a distrust about her actually believing in what she believes in now for so many reasons that it's tough to list them all and a lot of them are more about vague shadiness than proof. But, at the very minimum, Clinton knew she was going to run for president and still accepted money for speeches to Wall Street which is cause for concern and if it wasn't anything suspicious or anything bad she would've released the transcripts by now. I do quite like the theory of her saying she was running for president being the reason why she isn't releasing them- it makes a lot more sense than anything else to me, but it's ultimately just suspicion.
EDIT : Also, read the part about the 'Hillary Victory Fund' here and tell me that isn't at least slightly shady. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-committee-raised-33-million-222044
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
