• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Democratic Primary Debate V

Status
Not open for further replies.

Overlee

Member
Thank you for taking the time to post this, but I understand all of this, and it doesn't answer my question. I specifically talking the speeches that Goldmann Sachs paid Hillary for. What's the argument that those speeches bought them more access from Hillary than what they got when she delivered said speeches.


Because in total those speeches she gave were worth a whole lot of $$$$$$$$$. Money buys you influence which buys you power. She wasn't giving speeches to the Girl Scouts of America. She's giving them to the same people that run half our country.

It's not so much about damning content within the speeches but about the fact that she agreed to them and the benefits they provide (to her campaign, foundation, super pac, etc) all while slamming the very same system.

It comes off dishonest, I don't know any nicer way to put it.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Because in total those speeches she gave were worth a whole lot of $$$$$$$$$. Money buys you influence which buys you power. She wasn't giving speeches to the Girl Scouts of America. She's giving them to the same people that run half our country.

It's not so much about damning content within the speeches but about the fact that she agreed to them and the benefits they provide (to her campaign, foundation, super pac, etc) all while slamming the very same system.

It comes off dishonest, I don't know any nicer way to put it.
You could interpret it that way.

I could also buy your car for $50,000. Boom. I now control you since $$$$ = influence = power apparently.

She's Hillary Clinton. She's worth a shitload of money if you want her at speaking at your event. I think you guys forget that her net worth is $31.3 million. She doesn't really need the money so she doesn't have to give anyone jack shit. If they don't want to give her any more money? Uhhhh, like I said she's worth $31.3 million.

I know that this won't actually convince anyone of anything, but the whole thing is ridiculous. You have to get in a position of power first to make a difference. All the talk in the world doesn't mean shit if you're on the bottom of the totem pole.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
It's right here in the earlier post of mine:



People keep going back to campaign contributions (which I admit is a separate discussion), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the speeches, since people are demanding transcripts of them and implying that Goldmann Sachs somehow bought influence with Hillary Clinton by paying her to give a speech.
I don't see how ANY of it is different. I don't think the content of her speeches are relevant but I don't think there's a big difference between speaking fees and campaign donations outside of the perception of a difference due to a service being rendered. It's all about relationships.

Look at it like a workplace and all the politics that go on in the work place. For instance in my job my entire shift is relatively separated from the chain of command and due to that none of us have real tangible working relationships with anyone outside our immediate superior. Few if any of our issues are ever addressed, we rarely get the opportunity to move out of our shift and it's in large part due to the fact that none of us have relationships with the people making those decisions. It's not even nefarious. It's just human nature. So of course when the boss gets several applications one from an employee he's on good rapport with and another from someone he's only "met" in facility wide meetings the first guy has a better shot at mobility within the company. And of course if you're around the boss at all times you have more chances to bring up your issues than someone who has to trust in a middle man or find some way to get to the boss when your times don't overlap. It's just human nature.

Politics is already insulated from the general public enough without lobbying. Now add money to the equation with campaign financing, concurrent income(speaking fees) and the promise of post political employment(more speaking fees, advisory and lobbyist positions in a company) and you definitely have a clear path for corruption.

That said, it's entirely possible to take all that money and not be corrupted! Tons of people bounce from job to job sometimes landing with a competitor and don't spill their old company's secrets or otherwise act immorally. Lots of people do as well though so lets not pretend this stuff doesn't happen.

But even if you keep your integrity intact you're still definitely under influence. If you're surrounded by people with a clear motive that's what a lot of your advice is going to be and it takes a special kind of person to see through all of that. So lets say Hillary is not bought, she's still surrounded by what people'd call the "establishment" and by extension that's who's going to be influencing her more.

Of course influence works both ways, Bernie's definitely influenced by a different set of people and would likely serve their interests more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After watching a lot of the debates I'm starting to think Bernie is the better person, I think he leans more towards the average person than Hillary or any of the Republicans ever would however I am starting to have a lot of doubts about his leadership ability. Unlike Hillary I don't think a lot of his ideas are crazy or impossible, but I'm not sure that Bernie himself can pull them off. When listening to him he doesn't seem fast on his feet and does not seem like the sort of person who can inspire action nor convince people to work with him. Sometimes just being "right" isn't enough.

Which puts me in a weird place of thinking Bernie's got the right message but he's not the right man(or woman) to accomplish them, which then has me thinking what now? Say Bernie wins anyway but fails to accomplish any of his goals, does that actually set back Bernie's ideas? Would it be better to still support Bernie on the hopes he can get something done but likely not or would it be better to let him get close and hope it inspires another, possible better leader to run in the future thinking Bernie had it right but wasn't good enough to execute them?
I could also buy your car for $50,000. Boom. I now control you since $$$$ = influence = power apparently.
That's a rather simplistic view of the whole thing. You may not have bought him for 50,000 dollars but you can bet your ass next time he has something for sale he's gonna reach out to you and if you called him with some kind of offer that he'd answer the phone. Someone who paid market value for the car's not going to get that treatment.

It's why businesses sometimes have sales, sure they sell you an item for cheap on the chance of getting you to come back or buy something else not marked down. It is an investment, make no mistake. Some consumers will just take advantage of the sale, buy their one item at a discount and never buy anything else. Others, most, will buy something else or frequent the shop.
 

Overlee

Member
Which puts me in a weird place of thinking Bernie's got the right message but he's not the right man(or woman) to accomplish them, which then has me thinking what now? Say Bernie wins anyway but fails to accomplish any of his goals, does that actually set back Bernie's ideas? Would it be better to still support Bernie on the hopes he can get something done but likely not or would it be better to let him get close and hope it inspires another, possible better leader to run in the future thinking Bernie had it right but wasn't good enough to execute them?

You should run yourself! Become the change you want to see! His whole platform from the start is rooted in empowering everyone to make the political personal. That the system only goes as far as we take it, so we have the responsibility to make it.

I believe that now and I didn't before. So in that sense I don't think he really can lose.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
You should run yourself! Become the change you want to see! His whole platform win or lose is rooted in empowering everyone to make the political personal. That the system will only go as far as we take it, so we better be up for the responsibility to make it.

I believe that now and I didn't before. So in that sense I don't think he really can lose.
Hahahahaha. No way in hell I could run for President. I can't afford to stop working for more than a month before my car'd get repossessed and I'd have nowhere to live. It'd be one thing if there was actually a chance at raising enough money to cover such expenses and campaign but, lol, there's not.

There does need to be a dose of reality to "just run yourself." You either need the name brand capital, connections, experience or money beforehand. That said, I guess I'm young enough to switch careers and build some of those! Maybe in a decade or two I conceivably could.
Probably not though.

But putting aside the presidential aspect, both with Obama before and Sanders now seemingly getting the younger generation somewhat energized I do think more of us scrubs do need to start showing up for our local and state elections. So I think you're right in the sense that win or lose Bernie's accomplishing something, or has the chance to I mean. It's all for naught if sizable amounts of Sanders supporters give up if he loses and get further disenfranchised with the system and don't show up for other elections.
 

SamVimes

Member
You could interpret it that way.

I could also buy your car for $50,000. Boom. I now control you since $$$$ = influence = power apparently.

She's Hillary Clinton. She's worth a shitload of money if you want her at speaking at your event. I think you guys forget that her net worth is $31.3 million. She doesn't really need the money so she doesn't have to give anyone jack shit. If they don't want to give her any more money? Uhhhh, like I said she's worth $31.3 million.

I know that this won't actually convince anyone of anything, but the whole thing is ridiculous. You have to get in a position of power first to make a difference. All the talk in the world doesn't mean shit if you're on the bottom of the totem pole.

Especially because she's rich. If she doesn't need the money acting in a manner that is completely above reproach shouldn't be hard.

You could interpret it that way.

I could also buy your car for $50,000. Boom. I now control you since $$$$ = influence = power apparently.

She's Hillary Clinton. She's worth a shitload of money if you want her at speaking at your event. I think you guys forget that her net worth is $31.3 million. She doesn't really need the money so she doesn't have to give anyone jack shit. If they don't want to give her any more money? Uhhhh, like I said she's worth $31.3 million.

I know that this won't actually convince anyone of anything, but the whole thing is ridiculous. You have to get in a position of power first to make a difference. All the talk in the world doesn't mean shit if you're on the bottom of the totem pole.
He probably meant local governemtn.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
You should run yourself! Become the change you want to see! His whole platform from the start is rooted in empowering everyone to make the political personal. That the system only goes as far as we take it, so we have the responsibility to make it.

I believe that now and I didn't before. So in that sense I don't think he really can lose.

Your not Thoraxes.
 

2AdEPT

Member
You could interpret it that way.

I could also buy your car for $50,000. Boom. I now control you since $$$$ = influence = power apparently.

She's Hillary Clinton. She's worth a shitload of money if you want her at speaking at your event. I think you guys forget that her net worth is $31.3 million. She doesn't really need the money so she doesn't have to give anyone jack shit. If they don't want to give her any more money? Uhhhh, like I said she's worth $31.3 million.

I know that this won't actually convince anyone of anything, but the whole thing is ridiculous. You have to get in a position of power first to make a difference. All the talk in the world doesn't mean shit if you're on the bottom of the totem pole.

LOl if you think 31 mil is a lot now a days we are in worse trouble than we think. Sports aces and movie monkeys can make 30 mil, even a hundred, but they dont run the show. Psychopathy isnt content with millions, it wants world domination, i.e. billions, even trillions. Billions is the new Millions...get it?

Please attempt to recognize the "speeches" for the bribery facade they are. "speeches" simply legitimize the flat our bribery....... OK capiche...no one cares what she says at these "speeches" its simply a way to legitimize their flat out bribe. No one is worth $300k for a friggin 45 minute "speech" where all she is doing is blowing smoke up the ass of the donors minions for 30 minutes to an hour.
 

royalan

Member
I'll respond to the other posts in the morning, just saw this and wanted to respond before bed:

LOl if you think 31 mil is a lot now a days we are in worse trouble than we think. Sports aces and movie monkeys can make 30 mil, even a hundred, but they dont run the show. Psychopathy isnt content with millions, it wants world domination, i.e. billions, even trillions. Billions is the new Millions...get it?

Please attempt to recognize the "speeches" for the bribery facade they are. "speeches" simply legitimize the flat our bribery....... OK capiche...no one cares what she says at these "speeches" its simply a way to legitimize their flat out bribe. No one is worth $300k for a friggin 45 minute "speech" where all she is doing is blowing smoke up the ass of the donors minions for 30 minutes to an hour.

Donald Trump has been paid up to 1.5 million to give a 1 hour speech.

In fact, 300k is nothing compared to what some pop stars get for just showing up at parties.

Getting paid 300k is nothing, nothing, when you're as big a name as Clinton. If you think it is, you know nothing about celebrity.
 

2AdEPT

Member
Sometimes just being "right" isn't enough.

Give me a break. You had friggin Bush and Cheney running the show for 8 years and Obama was just Bush light for another 8......and you think Bernie is incompetent???!!?!? Its ALL about morals and integrity ....nothing else matters. You make the same mistake my father makes again and again.....he thinks having more money means you are smarter, when all it usually means is that you are more ruthless.

You Americans should relish the chance to put someone like Bernie in power...it doesn't happen every day, not even in Canada, or Europe. Lots of politicians in these countries campaign from the left (like Hillary and Obama) but dictate from the right once they get in. Bernie doesnt impress me as a two faced asshole like most lawyers and politicians.

Feel it America, you may not get a better shot.

I'll respond to the other posts in the morning, just saw this and wanted to respond before bed:



Donald Trump has been paid up to 1.5 million to give a 1 hour speech.

In fact, 300k is nothing compared to what some pop stars get for just showing up at parties.

Getting paid 300k is nothing, nothing, when you're as big a name as Clinton. If you think it is, you know nothing about celebrity.

PLease get some rest then cause we agree...you kind of agree with the idea of what I was disagreeing with right, that 30 million is nothing? Yet you realize that people dont just throw away 300k for no reason right? There has to be some benefit to them....do you honestly think Clinton's "star power" at a wall street firm is going to motivate the troops to make that money back and more? LOL. Same for Trump.....he gets more based on his net worth (billions) and it takes that much more to pay him off, not because he himself is worth a dime for what he says. Hillary is nothing at 30 mil, so she commands peanuts i.e. 300k, Trump is someone at billionaire status so it takes 1.5 mil to pay him off. Seems like we agree...get some rest! ;)
 

DR2K

Banned
I'm ready for a potential Clinton/Sanders ticket. The democrats are far more united than republicans. This is a civil rivalry vs that blood bath.
 
I'm ready for a potential Clinton/Sanders ticket. The democrats are far more united than republicans. This is a civil rivalry vs that blood bath.
I'm only speculating, but I think Hillary wants nothing to do with the man and would go scorched Earth on him if she could. At least they both know that respect is a two way street and they act accordingly for the sake of the party and decency.
 

RELAYER

Banned
Pretty sure teaming up with Clinton would take the wind out of Sanders' sails quite a bit.
Sanders supporters like him because he's anti-Clinton, not because he's lieutenant Clinton.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Give me a break. You had friggin Bush and Cheney running the show for 8 years and Obama was just Bush light for another 8......and you think Bernie is incompetent???!!?!? Its ALL about morals and integrity ....nothing else matters. You make the same mistake my father makes again and again.....he thinks having more money means you are smarter, when all it usually means is that you are more ruthless.
Please show me where I have said Bernie is incompetent. Understand that everyone running for President is competent, even Ben Carson, as kooky as he is, is a fucking neurosurgeon. And in the post of mine you quoted I clearly state I think Bernie is the better person, i.e. I think he's of higher integrity than the others.

But, Ben Carson, smart enough to be a brain surgeon would be a terrible president! Having money doesn't make one any smarter or less intelligent than the next person, it just means you wanted to make money and you went and did it. Much like politics there's a certain amount of ego necessary to make millions that some super intelligent people just don't have. You have truly brilliant people in business making millions and billions but you have truly brilliant people content doing volunteer work or maybe just putting a different priority first over money.

Now, getting back to Bernie, I've already said I don't think his ideas are that crazy or out there, however, in the United States of America you do gotta sell them. Bernie's shown that there's a sizable amount of people who believe them already but if the amount of people who already think like Bernie were enough to get what Bernie wants done then they'd have already been done! He has to sell them to a lot more people.

Bernie's shown me he's a good man. He's clearly adequate at fundraising and giving speeches. What he hasn't shown me is that he has any kind of true leadership ability, that he can inspire the confidence that he can accomplish his goals with the people already in power. And that's important because we're not voting for a 4 year dictator. If the Presidency alone had the power to just bring everything into existence then yes, Bernie is the best candidate hands down. Unfortunately(or fortunately depending on who's President at any given time) it's not and to pass the stuff Bernie wants to pass he's going to need to go through the House and Senate. Now, if there was also a wave of fresh new Sanders-like Representatives and Senators up for election at the same time that'd tilt the demographics in Congress towards Bernie's side he'd have a better shot at getting his stuff passed. But as it is, do I believe just plunking Bernie in the Presidency will convince Congress to play along with him? I really don't.

While I don't think Obama was ever as left leaning as many thought before election I would say he's a lot more charismatic than Bernie Sanders is and that didn't prevent him from basically getting stonewalled just trying to pass the less radical stuff he wanted.
You Americans should relish the chance to put someone like Bernie in power...it doesn't happen every day, not even in Canada, or Europe. Lots of politicians in these countries campaign from the left (like Hillary and Obama) but dictate from the right once they get in. Bernie doesnt impress me as a two faced asshole like most lawyers and politicians.

Feel it America, you may not get a better shot.
Look, if it comes down to Bernie being the nominee I will happily vote for Bernie Sanders, I like him far better than Hillary Clinton but I do get the concern a lot of people have regarding him. Considering how elections usually swing we're in for an interesting time. Historically the Democrats shouldn't even have a chance at the Presidency this election and yet they do, which is good but somewhat unusual. The last time Democrats went on a limb and moved to the left they got punished at the polls and now we have crazy Tea Partiers who are still convinced government is bad, and that Obama's a secret communist Muslim that's going to take away everyone's guns, I guess they also believe he would've taken over Texas(again) but through their bringing public attention to the plan they thwarted that plot. Sure if our districts were different, if our electoral college worked different, if all aspects of our election were different from the top down left leaning politicians would be much safer and more likely to get elected and pass stuff but this is the shit we gotta worry about.

Already, well, before it had even kicked in really, the anti-Obamacare sentiment had already built up enough to get to the point where the Republicans could get enough people in to pass it's removal(they just luckily don't have enough to override a veto). Obama was a popular, charismatic leader pushing for what should have been a relatively moderate health care bill and it basically cost the Congress.

If Sanders doesn't somehow exceed Obama's ability and truly inspire the whole country while accomplishing whatever he can accomplish he's done for, I think the backlash would be severe.

Because something else that's rarely brought up is, assuming a President Sanders could get passed everything he wants as he wants it, just pretend with me, the United States would be in for a world of hurt initially. Raising minimum wage is overall a good thing, it should be done, but raising it will accelerate certain jobs towards automation. It will eliminate some jobs. Some businesses, that in reality maybe should have already failed if they can't provide workers a livable wage, will fail. Raising corporate taxes and closing loopholes at the same time, which should be done, will exacerbate that. And then finally starting the death march of the private health care industry, which should also be done mind you, will eliminate yet more good jobs and wreak havoc on 401ks.

So step back and assume Sanders gets it all passed, now look back at Obama, how severe do you think the backlash of the average American will be to the initial years following Sanders first term compared to Obama's? And what are the chances he or another Democrat gets to stay in the White House and keep it all from being repealed?

I don't know that the average American is truly ready for the kind of societal change and financial "restructuring" that Bernie Sanders proposes, nor do I think he's inspirational and charismatic enough to lead the country through it and remain popular enough to not just get it passed but to stay long enough to defend it until the country has regained its footing and is better off than before.
 

2AdEPT

Member
This cannot be taken seriously. This is a patently ridiculous statement. Goodnight.

And because you don't take this seriously you wonder why there is no universal health care in the United states despite the Clintons swearing it was their plight and Obama didnt even pretend he was going to do it ...just said it has to go in "stages" and forced all people to pay into insurance instead, which perpetuated the same old system. Obamacare...yeah that's the answer.

I don't know that the average American is truly ready for the kind of societal change and financial "restructuring" that Bernie Sanders proposes, nor do I think he's inspirational and charismatic enough to lead the country through it and remain popular enough to not just get it passed but to stay long enough to defend it until the country has regained its footing and is better off than before.

You are buying into pro-establishment ideas. It doesnt matter what the sordid state of affairs is like in the senate. Bernie will be bought out less than any other politician you have a choice to vote for. I could care less about how much change actually takes place once he gets in, only that he gets in, because he will do better than Obama and the CLintons at sticking to his guns. The establishment knows this...it's not like he is new on the scene...he is their worst nightmare, and even kids can see it.

I am not even from your country and so I decided to read up on American history and ploughed through Robert Reich's books recently...he is bang on. He dated Hillary Clinton before his buddy Bill did. His answer when asked what kind of a date she was? "We went to the movies...she put too much butter on her popcorn." LOL.

Come on, I have a Masters in interdisciplinary health promotion, have known all about income equality and the Gini co-efficient since i graduated in 2003, learned which companies are the richest in the world, how many employees they really have, and as such who really is creating jobs and whom holds the most power. My Grandfather was a Bernie style politician who was well before his time...and didn't even get a pittance of votes. Most of the time Bernie style politicians get laughed off the podium.....

this is your chance to save yourselves another 4 years of recessions and slavery at the END of a 20 year progression; before slow but steady change starts building. Why start in 4 years what you could start today, you will reach an acceptable and tolerable level of integrity in government by 2036 instead of 2040? Canada is a slave to the US, it means more to me to have Bernie get in than it even does to most of you! There was no Bernie to vote for in the last Canadian election, at least not one with a chance.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
You are buying into pro-establishment ideas. It doesnt matter what the sordid state of affairs is like in the senate. Bernie will be bought out less than any other politician you have a choice to vote for. I could care less about how much change actually takes place once he gets in, only that he gets in, because he will do better than Obama and the CLintons at sticking to his guns. The establishment knows this...it's not like he is new on the scene...he is their worst nightmare, and even kids can see it.
Lol.

The establishment does indeed suck, but make no mistake, you're also talking pro-establishment ideas because if you don't even care if he can accomplish something just not be bought, well then, house still wins since they're already winning!

Look, lots of countries already have decided that they want to guarantee healthcare, sick time, paternity/maternity leave, either livable wages or a good social safety net, here in America, well, there's not that agreement. We're not disagreeing over how much to spend from where and to whom to give it, we're having an argument over whether or not they should even be offered. So, yes, I very much think it does matter who gets elected because our electorate doesn't agree on much, doing a bad job very well might create a backlash to undo everything.
I am not even from your country and so I decided to read up on American history and ploughed through Robert Reich's books recently...he is bang on. He dated Hillary Clinton before his buddy Bill did. His answer when asked what kind of a date she was? "We went to the movies...she put too much butter on her popcorn." LOL.
Well, that's bullshit, can never put too much butter on popcorn.
 

2AdEPT

Member
Lol.

The establishment does indeed suck, but make no mistake, you're also talking pro-establishment ideas because if you don't even care if he can accomplish something just not be bought, well then, house still wins since they're already winning!

Look, lots of countries already have decided that they want to guarantee healthcare, sick time, paternity/maternity leave, either livable wages or a good social safety net, here in America, well, there's not that agreement. We're not disagreeing over how much to spend from where and to whom to give it, we're having an argument over whether or not they should even be offered. So, yes, I very much think it does matter who gets elected because our electorate doesn't agree on much, doing a bad job very well might create a backlash to undo everything.
Well, that's bullshit, can never put too much butter on popcorn.

You arent following...its not that I dont follow what you are saying, its that I disagree vehemently with your logic. I edited my post above, hopefully that helps you understand that I do understand the long and tedious battle ahead for humanity....you seem to think that Hillary would somehow do better than Bernie at making slow progress toward a long term goal. I vehemently disagree, you dont have to explain yourself. We disagree on the character of the poeple we are talking about and their ability to change the minds of the electorate, which you so wisely put the blame on, not the politicians. Bernie is packing stadiums full of youth, Hillary is not. Your country changes for the better the second you dont fear the "catastrophe" you speak of where the whole country goes nuts and votes in Trump. The stats are pretty clear that Americans actually support Bernie's ideas...a more honest round of failing to get these promises though congress will only make the movement stronger. If Darth vader strikes down Obiwan in front of the kid Luke, he will only make Luke stronger.

You need Bernies promises to be shot down by congress or the youth wont know what they are up against. Hilliary isnt even offering free University, the idea wont be tested if she gets in at all...it will be heralded a "fairy tale" and "impossible."
 

mAcOdIn

Member
You arent following...its not that I dont follow what you are saying, its that I disagree vehemently with your logic. I edited my post above, hopefully that helps you understand that I do understand the long and tedious battle ahead for humanity....you seem to think that Hillary would somehow do better than Bernie at making slow progress toward a long term goal. I vehemently disagree, you dont have to explain yourself. We disagree on the character of the poeple we are talking about and their ability to change the minds of the electorate, which you so wisely put the blame on, not the politicians. Bernie is packing stadiums full of youth, Hillary is not. Your country changes for the better the second you dont fear the "catastrophe" you speak of where the whole country goes nuts and votes in Trump. The stats are pretty clear that Americans actually support Bernie's ideas...a more honest round of failing to get these promises though congress will only make the movement stronger. If Darth vader strikes down Obiwan in front of the kid Luke, he will only make Luke stronger.

You need Bernies promises to be shot down by congress or the youth wont know what they are up against. Hilliary isnt even offering free University, the idea wont be tested if she gets in at all...it will be heralded a "fairy tale" and "impossible."
First things first, I'm not afraid, I'm voting Bernie in everything I can, I'd rather him be the nominee and I've prepared myself(best I can) for financial armageddon no matter who wins from any party. I say bring it all on. This is all just speculative discussion for me.

I just wonder if it'd be better to wait for a better leader to try where as you think it'd be better for everyone see a failure(if it occurred), which is an interesting take. Not sure I agree, but honestly, I'm not sure if I disagree since it is indeed a little different this election. Maybe people do need to see a real loss from a real honest person and have the battlelines drawn in plain sight. I really don't know.

No matter what the next few years will be interesting.
 
what is there to discuss? accusing the next President of something non-important a naseua
It's your opinion that it's not important. Personally I think a candidate receiving over $3 million in speaking fees to big banks is important.

Part of having adult conversations is recognizing that other people have different opinions, and not resorting to name calling just because you disagree.
 
I can understand there being debate on the influence of money in politics in terms of campaign contributions (as long as people are willing to admit that politicians across both sides have accepted money from big donors, and this isn't a unique at all to Hillary on any level), but the attack on the speeches doesn't apply here. Hillary was paid to give a speech. The access that money bought was in Hillary Clinton showing up and giving said speech. The "debt" is paid. This is nothing like a campaign contribution, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, and ignores the incredible power and demand Hillary wields not just as a politician, but as a celebrity. Nobody's paying big money for O'Malley and Sanders to give speeches, and it doesn't have a damn thing to do with their perceived "political purity". It's because they're no-names on national level. Well, Bernie could probably command a sizable speaking fee these days.

It's right here in the earlier post of mine:



People keep going back to campaign contributions (which I admit is a separate discussion), but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the speeches, since people are demanding transcripts of them and implying that Goldmann Sachs somehow bought influence with Hillary Clinton by paying her to give a speech.

I would argue that these aren't really separate issues and again reiterate that it's not solely about the speeches. I see it originally having been brought up as another way to help focus more average voter attention to the relationship between big money and politics. I agree that Goldman Sachs' influence was set before these speeches; what's in the speeches themselves likely won't change that one way or another. But the >$20 million in campaign contributions speaks for itself. When you receive that much money, and are getting paid speaking fees, trying to distance yourself from big money is not going to go well.

It's mind boggling how Hillary herself can take such a strong stand publicly against Citizens United then turn around and say that money has "never, ever" influenced a single political decision of hers.
 

Valhelm

contribute something
I'm ready for a potential Clinton/Sanders ticket. The democrats are far more united than republicans. This is a civil rivalry vs that blood bath.

It won't happen. Hillary doesn't want to be seen as a radical and Sanders wouldn't want to work under a politician who represents so much of what he sees as problematic in our society.

He's also an old white guy from the northeast. He doesn't bring anything of note to the table, except the support of particularly rabid millennial supporters holding out for Clinton's death-in-office.
 

phanphare

Banned
I would argue that these aren't really separate issues and again reiterate that it's not solely about the speeches. I see it originally having been brought up as another way to help focus more average voter attention to the relationship between big money and politics. I agree that Goldman Sachs' influence was set before these speeches; what's in the speeches themselves likely won't change that one way or another. But the >$20 million in campaign contributions speaks for itself. When you receive that much money, and are getting paid speaking fees, trying to distance yourself from big money is not going to go well.

It's mind boggling how Hillary herself can take such a strong stand publicly against Citizens United then turn around and say that money has "never, ever" influenced a single political decision of hers.

I love how Hillary fully admits that money in politics is bad when it's on the republican side of things. then out of the other side of her mouth she "absolutely rejects" that she and her democrat friends are bought as well.
 
Do people who argue so fervently against money giving you power, and influence, believe that republicans are heavily swayed by the donations they receive from the Koch bros?
 

noshten

Member
Do people who argue so fervently against money giving you power, and influence, believe that republicans are heavily swayed by the donations they receive from the Koch bros?

It's not only that, Koch and similar lobbyists tied with the Tea Party have been financing candidates who run and win against more moderate Republicans. This is why the whole Trump situation arises, if Republicans haven't been hijacked by the Tea Party for the past 8 years and gave rise to extreme members of the party there is no way Trump would be polling so well for so long. They pretty much generated the electorate that is now lining up behind Trump and Cruz and other hopefuls have been doing their best to appeal to these people, with only Kucinich is really running in the primary as a moderate and he has no chance at the nomination.
 
It's your opinion that it's not important. Personally I think a candidate receiving over $3 million in speaking fees to big banks is important.

Part of having adult conversations is recognizing that other people have different opinions, and not resorting to name calling just because you disagree.
what is worse? geting money from speaking fees? or getting money from the Saudi Princes? (ahem Bush family sold out cough)
 

Adaren

Member
Going off this data, big banks are < 10% of Hillary's speaking fees.

Regardless of whether it's $1.8M or $3M (as the above poster claimed), it's certainly nowhere close to the majority.
 
what is worse? geting money from speaking fees? or getting money from the Saudi Princes? (ahem Bush family sold out cough)
Well there's a 50/50 chance I'm going to end up voting for Clinton so I would to at least see her respond to this issue seriously. I already know the Bush family is compromised and I have no plans to vote for him or any other Republican at the moment.
 

Adaren

Member
Well there's a 50/50 chance I'm going to end up voting for Clinton so I would to at least see her respond to this issue seriously. I already know the Bush family is compromised and I have no plans to vote for him or any other Republican at the moment.

I agree that she hasn't always responded well to the question of her ties to Wall Street, but (for me) her response in the last debate was pretty satisfactory. She kind of botched the delivery, but the idea was that if Bernie wants to accuse her of being corrupted and supporting the big banks, he should actually find some hard evidence and do it. Until then, it's just hearsay "Oh, she did some talks for big banks, so she must be corrupted by them!" while ignoring the other 90% of her speaking fees that she did for all sorts of other groups.

If Bernie or anyone else wants to continue the discussion based on political decisions that Clinton has made in support of the big banks, that's all fine and good. But her just having loose connections isn't enough to bother me anymore.

On releasing the transcripts, does she even have the right to do that? I don't blame her for having a non-committal response on the debate stage; she probably needed to (at the very least) consult with her lawyers. And what would be the result of her releasing the speeches? Probably just people combing through them for one line to take out of context so that they can find what they want to find in there.
 
I agree that she hasn't always responded well to the question of her ties to Wall Street, but (for me) her response in the last debate was pretty satisfactory. She kind of botched the delivery, but the idea was that if Bernie wants to accuse her of being corrupted and supporting the big banks, he should actually find some hard evidence and do it. Until then, it's just hearsay "Oh, she did some talks for big banks, so she must be corrupted by them!" while ignoring the other 90% of her speaking fees that she did for all sorts of other groups.

On releasing the transcripts, does she even have the right to do that? I don't blame her for having a non-committal response on the debate stage; she probably needed to (at the very least) consult with her lawyers. And what would be the result of her releasing the speeches? Probably just people combing through them for one line to take out of context so that they can find what they want to find in there.

We need to agree to disagree if you find the statement that money has never once influenced a single political decision by her "satisfactory". The fact that she can make that statement with a straight face is simply staggering. Bernie's response was brilliant - outlining to the voting public how big of a role money plays in politics is really all that needs to be said. Feigning outrage is a dishonest, blatant deflection and does nothing to absolve her of that documented monetary relationship. I would argue that making this solely about the speaking fees is itself a deflection from the larger, obvious issue. I think the speeches were brought up originally to draw further public scrutiny towards her relationship with big donor money.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
On releasing the transcripts, does she even have the right to do that? I don't blame her for having a non-committal response on the debate stage; she probably needed to (at the very least) consult with her lawyers. And what would be the result of her releasing the speeches? Probably just people combing through them for one line to take out of context so that they can find what they want to find in there.

Of course that's what's going to happen.

I'd put money on all of those speeches either being about breaking the glass ceiling or some general "Story Time with Hillary Clinton" where she just tells them a story about being SoS or First lady.

The whole point of these speeches for the corporations is for bragging rights and to feel important. Attack her on campaign contributions, that's where the real corruption comes from, not this.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
I agree that she hasn't always responded well to the question of her ties to Wall Street, but (for me) her response in the last debate was pretty satisfactory. She kind of botched the delivery, but the idea was that if Bernie wants to accuse her of being corrupted and supporting the big banks, he should actually find some hard evidence and do it. Until then, it's just hearsay "Oh, she did some talks for big banks, so she must be corrupted by them!" while ignoring the other 90% of her speaking fees that she did for all sorts of other groups.

If Bernie or anyone else wants to continue the discussion based on political decisions that Clinton has made in support of the big banks, that's all fine and good. But her just having loose connections isn't enough to bother me anymore.

On releasing the transcripts, does she even have the right to do that? I don't blame her for having a non-committal response on the debate stage; she probably needed to (at the very least) consult with her lawyers. And what would be the result of her releasing the speeches? Probably just people combing through them for one line to take out of context so that they can find what they want to find in there.
It's not about the speech itself. This is a problem virtually every politician has. It's a problem of access. It's an issue of money. Of future employment, although this one probably doesn't apply to Hillary herself.

At some point we gotta acknowledge that this isn't always a conspiracy. It also isn't a conspiracy that many rich CEO's are all on boards of each other's companies as well. This isn't a secret cabal of shit it's simply who you rub elbows with the most. It's a subtle bias you don't recognize because it's your normal. And depending on your view of government's role it's putting human faces on soulless corporations.

Look at it this way, even if the money itself isn't corrupting how hard are you going to want to go after someone you've just met or did a gig for? Now when you're faced with deciding whether to fine versus go full on criminal with jail time you're going to think back to all those nice people who worked there and how when you met some of them they were all great, you don't want to put them in jail do you?

'Course, the money's definitely an issue. How many people have left government work to work at the very companies they've been tasked with overseeing?

I'll be honest, I have no way, nor does Bernie, of knowing whether Hillary or any politician is truly bought or not but the fact you can't laugh and say of course they're not bought is the problem here. And even absent conclusive evidence I'm fairly certain many politicians are outright bought, so it's not like it's a farfetched thing I don't believe happens and think Hillary's the first or some shit.

Now, I'll admit campaign financing is an issue but I don't believe it's separate from speaking fees, just that campaign financing's the much lower fruit. Speaking fees and employment gets to the heart of America. If you can work for Apple and then work for Google and conceivably be a fine upstanding citizen shouldn't you be able to be on the FCC then go to Comcast? Or be a banker, be brought in to the Treasury Department and then go back to banking? It is entirely possible to play your role perfectly straight in all those scenarios but the chance of corruption is definitely there and ripe for abuse. Even without proof my knowledge of human nature tells me it's all but a certainty. And deciding how to solve that's a real tough issue, much harder than just tackling campaign finance.
 
You arent following...its not that I dont follow what you are saying, its that I disagree vehemently with your logic. I edited my post above, hopefully that helps you understand that I do understand the long and tedious battle ahead for humanity....you seem to think that Hillary would somehow do better than Bernie at making slow progress toward a long term goal. I vehemently disagree, you dont have to explain yourself. We disagree on the character of the poeple we are talking about and their ability to change the minds of the electorate, which you so wisely put the blame on, not the politicians. Bernie is packing stadiums full of youth, Hillary is not. Your country changes for the better the second you dont fear the "catastrophe" you speak of where the whole country goes nuts and votes in Trump. The stats are pretty clear that Americans actually support Bernie's ideas...a more honest round of failing to get these promises though congress will only make the movement stronger. If Darth vader strikes down Obiwan in front of the kid Luke, he will only make Luke stronger.

You need Bernies promises to be shot down by congress or the youth wont know what they are up against. Hilliary isnt even offering free University, the idea wont be tested if she gets in at all...it will be heralded a "fairy tale" and "impossible."

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. If it were true then the youth would have come out in the midterms when the republicans stated their only purpose was to block everything he proposes. Depending on the youth vote in the midterms leads to disaster and it's not just a recent phenomenon.
 

2AdEPT

Member
http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/why_we_must_try_for_progressive_change_20160208

Lol. Was attempting to say this all last night and now I get my back up this am!

Look, I recognize I'm a litter older than most here, but I wasn't even alive when CAnada went with single layer health care it could have stayed in the annals of imagination just as easily as it came forward; but I know the stories as the guy that did it was a guy just like Bernie. He was a politician who ran in my home city and his name is adorned all over the city on street signs and fancy buildings. Tommy Douglas is a household name there. It wasn't easy to achieve that status. Before there was any movement he injured his leg and required surgery but back then most doctors were ready to amputate. He kept looking and finally found an advanced doctor who used an experimental procedure but he couldn't pay what it cost...the doctor did it anyway. He felt so fortunate that he was determined to ensure that every Canadian got the same treatment he did....no one should have to get their leg amputated simply cause they can't pay.

There are movies made about the drama and battles fought. We aren't taking silly debates, we're talking death threats, bricks thrown, kids traumatized, and a plethora of people saying, " you care too much Tommy, just let it go." Yes, despite the hypocritical oath Doctors conspired to do these things, not "regular" citizens. But he wouldn't let down and stayed the course, eventually getting backing from another Saskatchewan politician, Diefenbaker.

Long and drama filled story short the war was won after MANY battles lost, Doctors are richer than average citizens after all....but the less psychopathic ones prevailed and the general public could see the disgusting hypocrisy of the doctors who feared making g less money......they were actually paid more after everything was said any done because go figure, more patients came forward with problems they normally could not afford to fix.

Reich and Bernie are attempting to do what only a select few will even try. Now is the time America!

Linkhttp://m.imdb.com/title/tt0439404/reviews?ref_=m_tt_urv#showAll

(Sorry don't know how to embed links on my phone)
 

Dude Abides

Banned
In what universe is attacking her on campaign finance personal?



You do a disservice to what should really be called a circus with this dismissive attitude.

Implying she is corrupt because she was paid to give speeches at Goldman is clearly a personal attack.

It's doubly annoying since of all of Bernie's pipe dreams, finance reform is the absolute least likely to come to fruition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom