|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
 Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanexelent wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | Forget Email-Gate and Benghazi-Gate. Hillary has a China-Gate problem that could be real trouble for her.
| Quote: | Virginia’s party boy-turned-governor Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend and confidant of the Clintons, is being investigated by the FBI and Department of Justice for potentially taking illegal campaign contributions.
The governor’s office told CNN, which broke the story, that it was not aware the investigation was under way and that it would cooperate if asked. Details are vague, but the investigation involves Chinese billionaire businessman Wang Wenliang, who now has the rare distinction of causing problems for both McAuliffe and Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton. It’s complicated—and it highlights just how much Clinton and McAuliffe’s questionable shared connections haunt their political dreams.
The investigation also involves the Clinton Foundation, according to CNN. CBS reported last year that Wang’s company, Rilin Enterprises, pledged in 2013 to give the organization $2 million. CNN noted that there is “no allegation” of impropriety on the foundation’s part and that McAuliffe formerly served on its board. Last year, the foundation’s decision to accept Wang’s company’s pledge drew pointed criticism because of Wang’s ties to the Chinese government—the billionaire used to be a delegate to the country’s parliament.
| Quote: | | Indirectly the Clinton Foundation has political influence, that’s why people give to it,” Jim Mann, former Beijing bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times, told CBS. “People give to the Clinton Foundation particularly because it is the Clintons and because they are prominent politicians in the United States.” |
Wang and his company have spent big to influence American politics—$1.4 million from 2012 to 2015 to lobby Congress and the State Department, according to CBS’s estimate. And Dandong Port Co., a subsidiary of Rilin Enterprises, has hired former politicos to lobby for its interests, as lobbying disclosure forms show.
During McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial campaign, his work with the company became a liability—especially because of allegations that McAuliffe and Rodham used their political connections to unfairly expedite the visa process for their investors. The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general issued a report in 2015 saying a top official there, Alejandro Mayorkas, made “an appearance of favoritism and special access.”
| Quote: | | “Mayorkas intervened in an administrative appeal related to the denial of a regional center’s application to receive EB-5 funding to manufacture electric cars through investments in a company in which Terry McAuliffe was the board chairman,” the report says. “The intervention was unprecedented and, because of the political prominence of the individuals involved, as well as USCIS’s traditional deference to its administrative appeals process, staff perceived it as politically motivated.” |
McAuliffe’s problems often rope in the Clintons, as in the case of Tony Rodham and GreenTech, because of his longtime status as a close confidant of Bill and Hillary. He co-chaired Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential re-election bid and Hillary’s 2008 presidential campaign. Bill Clinton has praised McAuliffe as a smooth-talking operator, once saying he “could talk an owl out of a tree,” |
Wall Street Influence is One Thing. Chinese Influence Is a Whole 'Nother Monster |
So both leading candidates may have a small wang problem. |
 The reason this isn't going to just wisp away is because little Republican heads are exploding in Virginia due to Gov. McAuliffe granting voting rights to 200,000 former felons. That battle will keep this issue at the forefront until a court decides whether or not to allow the Gov's order to stand, ie before the election. The Repugs won't let go of this one.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Capt.Skyhook
Star Player
Joined: 29 Feb 2004
Posts: 3991
Location: Louisville, Ky.
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: | | ChefLinda wrote: | | Add in Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren to help whip up the Obama-coalition and the polls will shift. |
What about Bernie?  |
In the end, Bernie will do the right thing and encourage his voters to turn out against Trump. He won't have the most conventional or passionate endorsement for Hillary, but it will do. Bernie is wholly against a Trump presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29286
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the Clinton foundation received donations from people who don't live in the United States?
Makes sense to me. Seems like a non-story. Don't see the outrage.
The foundation has been around for years and years. Their practices are not new (or illegal).
If you go to the Clinton Foundation website this is what you'll see.
| Quote: | Creating Partnerships of Purpose
We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change. |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | So the Clinton foundation received donations from people who don't live in the United States?
Makes sense to me. Seems like a non-story. Don't see the outrage.
The foundation has been around for years and years. Their practices are not new (or illegal).
If you go to the Clinton Foundation website this is what you'll see.
| Quote: | Creating Partnerships of Purpose
We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change. |
|
And this is how it will be sold by the opposition to a public that already deeply distrusts the candidate because they already believe she has been bought, and is owned & beholden to Wall Street. There is a current active FBI investigation that will continue because Republicans have a strong desire to nullify the votes of the 200,000 former felons that Goc McAuliffe granted voting status in a swing state where Trump and Clinton are currently in a dead heat.
| Quote: | | Indirectly the Clinton Foundation has political influence, that’s why people give to it. People give to the Clinton Foundation particularly because it is the Clintons and because they are prominent Politicians in the United States |
A predictable August Trump Headline:
| Quote: | | Clintons Up To Their Old Tricks. They get their old Pal Terry McAuliffe to grant voting rights to Felons to Swing Election in Their Favor. |
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
Last edited by Aussiesuede on Tue May 24, 2016 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29286
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | kikanga wrote: | So the Clinton foundation received donations from people who don't live in the United States?
Makes sense to me. Seems like a non-story. Don't see the outrage.
The foundation has been around for years and years. Their practices are not new (or illegal).
If you go to the Clinton Foundation website this is what you'll see.
| Quote: | Creating Partnerships of Purpose
We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for girls and women, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change. |
|
And this is how it will be sold by the opposition to a public that already deeply distrusts the candidate because they already believe she has been bought, and is owned & beholden to Wall Street:
| Quote: | | Indirectly the Clinton Foundation has political influence, that’s why people give to it. People give to the Clinton Foundation particularly because it is the Clintons and because they are prominent Politicians in the United States |
|
She wasn't going to win the vote for alot of those people anyways.
Some people are just looking for an excuse to let Trump win. She isn't the first person to benefit from our 2 party government, and she won't be the last. Choose the lesser of two evils and realize you don't always get what you want (a.k.a. growing up).
Trump has business interests outside the United States as well. And those interests overseas don't have idealistic goals like the Clinton Foundation.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
You, me, and HOPEFULLY enough others...
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So HRC and Bill are "slimy" because no other politician or former government employee ever left office then took speaking fees for money. Seriously. At least they started a charity to do some good in the world. But even that gets construed as a bad thing. After 30 years of constant smears, people see what they believe is already there, the truth be damned.
And at certain point, HRC donated many of her speaking fees to charity.
And the Clintons released 30 years of tax returns. Still waiting for Bernie and Donald to do the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Barrack Obama was pretty poor before his political career launched book deals, and will be significantly wealthier than he is now in coming years.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilt wrote: |
All of this will seem silly when Hillary and Bernie unite at the convention. |
He's gonna get up before her and state, "I hear Hillary is making X amt of dollars for her speech tonight. Must be a pretty good speech!"
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ocho wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Hillary is a strange animal, terribly competent but charismatically nonexistent. Couple that with a decades old smear machine and a vote the bums out electoral milieu, and she's holding on for dear life despite running essentially against two wildly unrealistic demagogues |
She sadly remains a terrible campaigner, and practice does not seem to improve her skills in that regard. |
Unfortunately, her more polarizing qualities (from wherever they rest inside her) inspired hostility from certain corners after the very first time she spoke to a reporter on Bill's 92 campaign trail. Midwestern hausfraus didn't like her statement about not standing by her man a la Tammy Wynette and baking cookies. His election crew wanted to keep her in the background as much as possible. George Stephanopolous and James Carville once shared a story about them all watching Q-ratings of Bill going off the charts in a positive spike and when she came on screen, the needle sunk immediately. They said without missing a beat, Bill earnestly replied, "Oh, they don't like her hair...." Steph said that Carville was kicking his foot under the table and they barely were able to tamp down their laughter. They had to go out into the hall to crack up. I feel bad for her at times because she must know after 25 years that she's damned no matter WHAT she does.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| non-player zealot wrote: | | ocho wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | Hillary is a strange animal, terribly competent but charismatically nonexistent. Couple that with a decades old smear machine and a vote the bums out electoral milieu, and she's holding on for dear life despite running essentially against two wildly unrealistic demagogues |
She sadly remains a terrible campaigner, and practice does not seem to improve her skills in that regard. |
Unfortunately, her more polarizing qualities (from wherever they rest inside her) inspired hostility from certain corners after the very first time she spoke to a reporter on Bill's 92 campaign trail. Midwestern hausfraus didn't like her statement about not standing by her man a la Tammy Wynette and baking cookies. His election crew wanted to keep her in the background as much as possible. George Stephanopolous and James Carville once shared a story about them all watching Q-ratings of Bill going off the charts in a positive spike and when she came on screen, the needle sunk immediately. They said without missing a beat, Bill earnestly replied, "Oh, they don't like her hair...." Steph said that Carville was kicking his foot under the table and they barely were able to tamp down their laughter. They had to go out into the hall to crack up. I feel bad for her at times because she must know after 25 years that she's damned no matter WHAT she does. |
I can only say that my experience is that many, mostly Democratic woman, respond to her completely differently then men and GOP women. I have seen her before huge crowds of women, small groups of women and one-on-one with women, young girls and boys. She's warm and charming and funny and empathetic and real and people reciprocate the warmth. Whatever happens when the teleprompter comes on and she has to appear more "professional" and "reserved", apparently something changes in people's perceptions. But I still see the same person I know her to be.
Her history is also one of when she actually "gets the job" and no longer has to perform for the cameras, her likability shoots up. And people will kill me for this, but there is a gender double-standard in how we perceive people. Women raise their voices, they are (bleep) and controlling. Men raise their voices, they are passionate in their beliefs. etc etc etc. There is almost no way she could please everybody. I guess we'll have to settle for a smart and competent president -- again. Oh, the humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, HRC has substantially better favorability numbers with women. Just the same, any poll numbers as of right now are only marginally significant. When September rolls around, we'll see what the numbers really look like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29286
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hillary is starting to get a funny sense of humor. This genuinely made me laugh.
| Quote: | | Hillary: And he [Trump] has experience with bankruptcy. Right?! I don't know if that's one of the qualifications for running for President. But I kind of doubt it. He's bankrupted companies... I said yesterday, I don't know how you lose money running casinos? |
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kikanga wrote: | Hillary is starting to get a funny sense of humor. This genuinely made me laugh.
| Quote: | | Hillary: And he [Trump] has experience with bankruptcy. Right?! I don't know if that's one of the qualifications for running for President. But I kind of doubt it. He's bankrupted companies... I said yesterday, I don't know how you lose money running casinos? |
|
That joke actually came from Marco Rubio. I recall him saying, "Every business that he’s ever run that’s gone bankrupt — this guy’s bankrupt a casino. How do you bankrupt a casino? How do you bankrupt a casino?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well? |
Oh please, I don't besmirch business success, quite the opposite. The problem I have is that they appear to conflate public interests with private interests.
Other than the once-in-a-century futures trade (which was a front-running bribe) by the Clintons, I am hard-pressed to find the nature of their business dealings, outside of speaking fees and appearances. What makes this uncomfortable for me is that Hillary has been a Secretary of State and US Senator, receiving fees well in excess of any current or former Secretary of State or US Senator. You might argue that the Wall Street and corporate interests love her speaking abilities, but I doubt it. Those excessive fees have everything to do with her ability to manipulate policy. Ditto for Bill. Wall Street and the corporate interests know exactly what they're buying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 21365
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well? |
Gerald Ford is credited with the modern style of cashing in on high-dollar speaking engagements and book advances and he wasn't even elected to office. Carter and Ford are thought to be closest friends among ex-Presidents and even Jimmy The Gent, whose reputation for service and decency are above reproach, learned from his boy how it was done. The last pure stalwart who took umbrage against politicians making money on their former titles was Harry Truman. There weren't many things that Harry didn't take umbrage with, but that was back in the day when he was offered opportunities like a new brand of bar soap called Truman soap. "Smell TRUMAN clean!"
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well? |
Oh please, I don't besmirch business success, quite the opposite. The problem I have is that they appear to conflate public interests with private interests.
Other than the once-in-a-century futures trade (which was a front-running bribe) by the Clintons, I am hard-pressed to find the nature of their business dealings, outside of speaking fees and appearances. What makes this uncomfortable for me is that Hillary has been a Secretary of State and US Senator, receiving fees well in excess of any current or former Secretary of State or US Senator. You might argue that the Wall Street and corporate interests love her speaking abilities, but I doubt it. Those excessive fees have everything to do with her ability to manipulate policy. Ditto for Bill. Wall Street and the corporate interests know exactly what they're buying. |
Her actual voting record as a Senator was on the most liberal/progressive end of the spectrum -- calling for Wall Street reform early and often. Barney Frank has endorsed her and her policies for Wall Street reform.
All speaking fees for very famous people are "excessive" no matter who the audience is. The most in demand receives the most money. She's been the "Most Admired Woman" on the planet every year for 20 years. Who else is comparable to that?
What policies has she manipulated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32754
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | | Omar Little wrote: | | angrypuppy wrote: | The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well. |
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels. |
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons? |
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well? |
Oh please, I don't besmirch business success, quite the opposite. The problem I have is that they appear to conflate public interests with private interests.
Other than the once-in-a-century futures trade (which was a front-running bribe) by the Clintons, I am hard-pressed to find the nature of their business dealings, outside of speaking fees and appearances. What makes this uncomfortable for me is that Hillary has been a Secretary of State and US Senator, receiving fees well in excess of any current or former Secretary of State or US Senator. You might argue that the Wall Street and corporate interests love her speaking abilities, but I doubt it. Those excessive fees have everything to do with her ability to manipulate policy. Ditto for Bill. Wall Street and the corporate interests know exactly what they're buying. |
Her actual voting record as a Senator was on the most liberal/progressive end of the spectrum -- calling for Wall Street reform early and often. Barney Frank has endorsed her and her policies for Wall Street reform.
All speaking fees for very famous people are "excessive" no matter who the audience is. The most in demand receives the most money. She's been the "Most Admired Woman" on the planet every year for 20 years. Who else is comparable to that?
What policies has she manipulated? |
| Quote: | (CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks. |
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
| Quote: | Anderson Cooper: "But did you have to be paid $675,000 [for three speeches to Goldman Sachs]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know. That's what they offered."
Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered."
It was not what they offered -- it was what Team Hillary demanded. |
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.html
| Quote: | “Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.
A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”
In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”
In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged, and said, “That’s what they offered,” adding that “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”
ED. NOTE: Speaking fees for former Sec. of States Colin Powell & Madeline Albright - $50K
Both of these former secretaries of state are “in the $50,000 range,” said one person who has booked speakers but who could not discuss private contracts for attribution,” the New York Times reported, significantly less than their successors Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.
At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”
The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling. |
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?ref=opinion&_r=1
It is obvious that Wall Street and Corporate America is buying the presumptive future POTUS, or at least trying to significantly influence her policies. Perhaps you don't find that offensive because of the lack of an indictment, but I expect more than that out of a President of the United States.
In the words of one very wise ruler, Marcus Aurelius:
A man should be upright, not be kept upright.
In other words, the appearance of independence for someone in the public trust is as important as being independent in fact. The lack of that appearance undermines the public faith in our institutions and leaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Christopher C
Star Player
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 6292
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChefLinda wrote: | | Barney Frank has endorsed her and her policies for Wall Street reform. |
"This champion of financial reform just joined a bank’s board"
FORTUNE
"How Wall Street Bought Barney Frank
Barney Frank takes pride in being the Left's darling, but he's almost entirely funded by Wall Street and his votes show it."
ALTERNET
| ChefLinda wrote: | | What policies has she [Hillary Clinton] manipulated? |
"Barack Obama Never Said Money Wasn’t Corrupting; In Fact, He Said the Opposite"
The Intercept
"Nor a Lender Be
Hillary Clinton, liberal virtue, and the cult of the microloan"
HARPER'S
"The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change."
The Nation
"Elizabeth Warren vs. Hillary Clinton (2004)" (Bankruptcy Bill)
YouTube |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChefLinda
Moderator
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24165
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If anyone ever proves a quid-pro-quo for an HRC policy position, then get back to me.
Is the whole system corrupt? Yes, I completely agree. But it's the system we have and you have to work within the existing system to change it. I actually do trust HRC to try to help change it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | That joke actually came from Marco Rubio. I recall him saying, "Every business that he’s ever run that’s gone bankrupt — this guy’s bankrupt a casino. How do you bankrupt a casino? How do you bankrupt a casino?" |
It's a good laugh line, but how many casinos in Las Vegas have filed for bankruptcy? A better question might be which ones haven't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
