|
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 October 16 2016 07:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 07:22 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 16 2016 06:36 Dan HH wrote:On October 16 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Just a reminder that her transcripts were another thing she lied about the whole campaign. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787343422227091457 What was the lie? I genuinely don't know, thought her position on paid speech transcripts was something along the lines of 'i'll release them if Donald releases his' which of course meant she had no intention of releasing them but I assume you're referring to something else First she said she'll look into it. Then she decided she would release them when her opponents released theirs, they didn't have any transcripts so they've all been released, yet she never released hers. The question is, if there's nothing in there, why didn't she just release them? If she'll hide nothing how wouldn't she hide much worse? Just because there's nothing in there to hurt her in the current predicament doesn't mean it wouldn't have hurt her in the primary. You saw the attempt to use the 'basement dwellers' soundbite out of context, who's to say it wouldn't have done more damage in the primary than it did now? And we're talking in hindsight, we've seen the reaction to the transcripts. Her campaign had to make an educated guess on which would hurt more, and they may have been wrong. That's vanilla cynicism as far as politics go, and I'm sure her campaign would hide 'something much worse' as you say if there was a choice in the matter. I don't think anyone is fooling themselves that Clinton is some champion of transparency. Regardless, my problem with the speeches is not that they weren't made public or what she may or may not have said, it's that their existance. It just reeks of legal bribery that companies can pay people that are holding office millions to 'speak'. Let's be honest, the information in those speeches is pretty much worthless, the return on such an investment comes not from the words you see in those transcripts but from getting on the good side of whoever you just paid and possibly to invite clients/investors to these speeches to show 'look who we've got paying special attention to us' as a persuasion tool. Of course that's the problem. But her supporters are so far from recognizing that, it's not even worth broaching. If they didn't type out a contract of quid per quo, it's just good politics by their metric at this point. The idea that she thinks her presence and those words were worth $250k/hr, but $15/hr for women working their asses off, is too high a burden for the economy to handle, is the kind of thing that used to sit sour on the left.
Yeah, I've seen a lot of "that's just good politics" and then the suggestion that being able to play the political game of getting votes and manipulating the system in your favour is something that should be commended. That to me reeks of the same kind of logic as putting Trump in charge of taxes because he is so good at playing the system to avoid paying them. Just absolutely crazy and it doesn't seem like it matches with the basic idea of how the system of democratic governance should work (in my opinion).
On October 16 2016 08:16 biology]major wrote:
Why would anyone pay 6 figures an hour to hear HRC speak? Obama or Bill sure, but lol I would be asleep in minutes.
To get some face time and influence, obviously. They did ask her about the potential of running for president and whatnot, and who knows what was said outside of the transcript.
Somewhat related to paying for speeches, to me it was sufficient to hear Musk say that he donated to both Republicans and Democrats because you need to give money to have your voice heard. This allows me to dismiss the whole thing as essentially corrupt. I know that is overreaching, but I do feel like there's been a bit of a tipping point when you throw in the whole Citizens United thing and swaying of public opinion through massive ad campaigns. I mean, American corporate-fuelled propaganda is not going be any better than the state fuelled propaganda of Russia, I hope you can see the problem with that. Both have their own interests at heart. I would argue that corporations care less about the people than the State does (one would hope that is the case, anyway), which makes me lean towards Russia's model moreso than the "free to spout nonsense if you have sufficient money to throw at it" model which allows things like climate change deniers to exist in mass numbers. Of course, you can easily argue against it, but lets not for sake of avoiding more pointless discussions about the obvious known benefits and pitfalls of either system.
Reading through the first speech, I find myself having increased worries that we are heading into an world war-like scenario where nuclear weapons are being used. Realistically, I don't think it will necessarily escalate into destruction of the planet (since the weapons today are too sophisticated for that unless you put in some real dedication towards blowing up as many as possible everywhere on the planet) but she does not paint a good picture of the future in my view. She seems far too committed to keeping the USA in unilateral control of the world, and doesn't want to give leeway to any other points of view in her actions even if she appears to see the merit in those points of view. In her words, I see an assumption that intervention to undermine countries from obtaining any sort of power for themselves is always something that should be done. That is absolutely mortifying to me, and probably the majority of the world if documents like this are to believed.
But, on the whole, I don't think the speech was very condemning. It expressed the views that we knew she held and largely continues to hold to this day. There was a fair amount of interesting stuff in there about China and international relations and whatnot. There were also a few positive notes. She talks about evidence-based decision making as opposed to hardlining based on partisanship, which is almost a relief to hear at this point. We'll see if America survives until Christmas and if the GOP can re-adjust. I'm looking forward to following the inevitable riots after November 8th. Yes, we also have a specific word for Schadenfraude in Dutch and I intend to get my fill in these coming months.
|
|
|
On October 16 2016 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 09:31 oBlade wrote:On October 16 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:
Apart from the fact that bribery is obviously nonsense because they're openly paid for this which is perfectly legal, you do know that you can't just bribe the President of the United States to do things for you right? He's not the supreme leader, that's not how the United States work. If you'd want to buy political influence you try to influence local lawmakers, you don't bribe Hillary If it were impossible to influence the president because they have no power, this wouldn't be the most contentious election in decades. They have power, you just can't influence US politics if you think you can bribe the president with a few million bucks. This isn't some African village where you slide over a suitcase with blood diamonds to some warlord. Clinton isn't going to change her political beliefs because you pay her for her speeches.
Yes, you cannot make an appointment with someone who happens to be president and make a contract where you wire them money and they hand over federal property to you. That's not what's going on.
|
Yea I dunno why the transcripts of the speeches themselves would need to be protected. Like why would she say anything nefarious in a semi public setting like that? Not like she is going to talk about her baby eating diet in those things. The pay for her speeches is pretty much all the evidence those who harp on that kind of thing anyway.
|
On October 16 2016 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:
Apart from the fact that bribery is obviously nonsense because they're openly paid for this which is perfectly legal, you do know that you can't just bribe the President of the United States to do things for you right? He's not the supreme leader, that's not how the United States work. If you'd want to buy political influence you try to influence local lawmakers, you don't bribe Hillary
Bribery does not require being illegally paid, that's not something inherent to the concept. Say we're in Absurdistan and it's currently illegal for a company to contribute more than 1k absurdollars to a political campaign. Could it be bribery by your definition if a company contributes with 10k to a campaign? Could be. Now say the same company contributed 10k to a campaign when that was legal before the limit was set to 1k? Could it have been bribery according to your definition? 'Obviously nonsense'. See why this is a problem? The intention with which the money was given could have been the same in both cases. What you are doing is the same as when people try to argue that something isn't immoral because it's not illegal.
And of course the president doesn't need to have absolute power for his support (either public or within his party) to be valuable, how did you ever get that idea?
|
I think it is a bit silly to think that the president or SoS can be bribed with a couple 100K for speaking while Wells Fargo's CEO ranks in 20 million for just existing in the job. The math to power scale is just off.
|
It is unfortunate about the speaking fees, but I see no good answer to it; as long as it's not done while they're in office the basis for interference is thin, so you just have to watch for stuff.
|
It's not bribery in any sense, no matter if you're using the term legally or morally. Hillary Clinton is a famous person, rich people like to spend a lot of money to hear famous politicians speak. There's no evidence that, especially the finance related talks, have impacted her policies given that she was one of the law makers who proposed stricter financial regulation in 2007 and 2008.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/
And of course the president doesn't need to have absolute power for his support (either public or within his party) to be valuable, how did you ever get that idea?
I didn't say that, I said that Clinton isn't going to be impacted by what is essentially pocket money compared to the regular amounts of money that flow in politics. If the Clinton's want to make more money they don't need to sell themselves out.
|
On October 16 2016 09:53 Slaughter wrote:
Yea I dunno why the transcripts of the speeches themselves would need to be protected. Like why would she say anything nefarious in a semi public setting like that? Not like she is going to talk about her baby eating diet in those things. The pay for her speeches is pretty much all the evidence those who harp on that kind of thing anyway.
If you read some of the summaries of Hillary's email things, Hillary really doesn't like having stuff exposed to the public because she's used to being attacked by Republicans for everything she's done, so it's possible that she just doesn't want the speeches available for the public to misquote her to attack her (which is happening now as evidenced by NettleS). It's also possible that the people paying for the speeches don't want them to be exposed, or some combination of things.
|
It's lobbying, more or less. Which is a discussion on its own, about the use of money and resources to get an audience and drown out the interests of people without the same.
But talking about bribery is silly. Hell, Nettles said it himself. 2001-2013. 739 speeches. Average of $210k per speech. If anything, that should tell you how much money you'd have to see involved to even enter bribe territory. Three speeches to Goldman Sachs in whatever years is less than 1% of their speech income.
|
Exactly, so when trump confronts her on the debate about what product she was selling to get to 300 million, she's not going to be ready. Whatever bs she comes up with will make her look bad, because it is a form of lobbying aka bribery. Trump has to hammer her on that point and the open borders position as well, not that it matters but more people should know what the media fails to cover.
|
No, he isn't. I'll try, but he will do some hamfisted bullshit and it won't work. Because he is a terrible debater and it just going to seem like conspiracy theory bullshit.
|
Also Trump is dirty as hell and might have actually pulled illegal stuff with his Cuban investments, which just like the assault allegations against Bill will make him look like he's projecting again.
If the GOP wanted to smear Hillary on her establishment ties they should've put up someone with a clean slate.
|
On October 16 2016 10:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Also Trump is dirty as hell and might have actually pulled illegal stuff with his Cuban investments, which just like the assault allegations against Bill will make him look like he's projecting again.
If the GOP wanted to smear Hillary on her establishment ties they should've put up someone with a clean slate.
I don't think newborns are allowed to run for president.
|
On October 16 2016 10:40 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 10:39 Nyxisto wrote:
Also Trump is dirty as hell and might have actually pulled illegal stuff with his Cuban investments, which just like the assault allegations against Bill will make him look like he's projecting again.
If the GOP wanted to smear Hillary on her establishment ties they should've put up someone with a clean slate. I don't think newborns are allowed to run for president.
You are correct, you need to be 35. But lets not let that detract from Trump being complete garbage.
|
On October 16 2016 10:29 biology]major wrote:
Exactly, so when trump confronts her on the debate about what product she was selling to get to 300 million, she's not going to be ready. Whatever bs she comes up with will make her look bad, because it is a form of lobbying aka bribery. Trump has to hammer her on that point and the open borders position as well, not that it matters but more people should know what the media fails to cover.
And the followup would be, what was he selling for $1.5million a pop?
|
On October 16 2016 10:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 10:29 biology]major wrote:
Exactly, so when trump confronts her on the debate about what product she was selling to get to 300 million, she's not going to be ready. Whatever bs she comes up with will make her look bad, because it is a form of lobbying aka bribery. Trump has to hammer her on that point and the open borders position as well, not that it matters but more people should know what the media fails to cover. And the followup would be, what was he selling for $1.5million a pop?
He's an asshole selfish business man, who has admitted to buying influence. Not only are the standards for him much lower, he's actually admitted to the corruption. He isn't a warren buffet or bill gates type of businessman, that's for sure. Clinton is a public servant who shrouds herself in secrecy, that question will destroy her if he presses her on it far more than it does him.
Look, trump is shit. He's an agent of change in this election, and he's not Hillary. That's all he's got going for him. This thread though just keeps showing the delusional attitudes of hrc supporters. Either deflect or pretend it's not as bad, well it's pretty bad.
|
On October 16 2016 10:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:
It's lobbying, more or less. Which is a discussion on its own, about the use of money and resources to get an audience and drown out the interests of people without the same.
But talking about bribery is silly. Hell, Nettles said it himself. 2001-2013. 739 speeches. Average of $210k per speech. If anything, that should tell you how much money you'd have to see involved to even enter bribe territory. Three speeches to Goldman Sachs in whatever years is less than 1% of their speech income.
How is it silly? The second that lobbying involves paying or gifting politicians it becomes bribery. I'm quite certain that not just I, but neither GH nor the Trump supporters that used the word bribery referred to the isolated effect of one payment in the banana republic sense where you put money in someone's hand and receive a beneficial law or government contract.
1. Something (usually money) given in exchange for influence or as an inducement to dishonesty.
Where are you guys getting the part where it involves requires illegality and an immediate specific task in return? Bribery can be and often is an investment rather than a one off.
|
On October 16 2016 10:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 10:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 16 2016 10:29 biology]major wrote:
Exactly, so when trump confronts her on the debate about what product she was selling to get to 300 million, she's not going to be ready. Whatever bs she comes up with will make her look bad, because it is a form of lobbying aka bribery. Trump has to hammer her on that point and the open borders position as well, not that it matters but more people should know what the media fails to cover. And the followup would be, what was he selling for $1.5million a pop? He's an asshole selfish business man, who has admitted to buying influence. Not only are the standards for him much lower, he's actually admitted to the corruption. He isn't a warren buffet or bill gates type of businessman, that's for sure. Clinton is a public servant who shrouds herself in secrecy, that question will destroy her if he presses her on it far more than it does him. Look, trump is shit. He's an agent of change in this election, and he's not Hillary. That's all he's got going for him. This thread though just keeps showing the delusional attitudes of hrc supporters. Either deflect or pretend it's not as bad, well it's pretty bad.
don't make unfounded claims of delusionality; the point is that she's better than he is. which is reason enough for people to vote as they do.
and the question won't do anything to her, cuz everyone already knows.
|
On October 16 2016 10:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2016 10:55 biology]major wrote:On October 16 2016 10:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 16 2016 10:29 biology]major wrote:
Exactly, so when trump confronts her on the debate about what product she was selling to get to 300 million, she's not going to be ready. Whatever bs she comes up with will make her look bad, because it is a form of lobbying aka bribery. Trump has to hammer her on that point and the open borders position as well, not that it matters but more people should know what the media fails to cover. And the followup would be, what was he selling for $1.5million a pop? He's an asshole selfish business man, who has admitted to buying influence. Not only are the standards for him much lower, he's actually admitted to the corruption. He isn't a warren buffet or bill gates type of businessman, that's for sure. Clinton is a public servant who shrouds herself in secrecy, that question will destroy her if he presses her on it far more than it does him. Look, trump is shit. He's an agent of change in this election, and he's not Hillary. That's all he's got going for him. This thread though just keeps showing the delusional attitudes of hrc supporters. Either deflect or pretend it's not as bad, well it's pretty bad. don't make unfounded claims of delusionality; the point is that she's better than he is. which is reason enough for people to vote as they do. and the question won't do anything to her, cuz everyone already knows.
Nah, if it were just she's better than he is I wouldn't have any problem with that. Doesn't matter if everyone knows, it's the fact that she won't have a good answer and will look bad, which is essentially what these debates are about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
