121–130 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confused. It's less than 3000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s... The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book. Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.
Yes, I completely admit I had no idea she had a new book out this week. I'm assuming I'm not alone ><
" that’s like asking why anyone would pay Beyoncé or the Beatles a million dollars just to play a few songs " This almost feels like playing dumb. The fact that a legitimate public speaking economy exists and has a dynamic which is not based on payola does not mean that a dirtier side does not. Like other pieces of the money-in-politics puzzle there are legitimate, non-corrupt reasons to hand powerful people 6 figure…
> The rewards to attracting the right people in the corporate world can more than justify a six-figure speech. Hedge funds often invite potential clients to events featuring prominent speakers. As one hedge fund manager has explained, if just one client “decides to invest $10 million… the firm will snag a 2 percent management fee—which works out to $200,000” per year. This on the other hand seems like a very legitima…
The main way I think this topic goes wrong is becoming a trial. In a trial you are looking for definite proof of unacceptable (and ideally illegal) misconduct. This is not a trial question, IMO. If you find out the girls have been in the boys room while at band camp, you can probably guess the reasons or at least the outcomes in a large enough portion of cases.
The system needs to be preventative. Elected officials in particular need to have no legal way of accepting this kind of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clinton is being treated far more kindly than Trump.
What universe is that happening in? There have been around 50 smoke-screen fake 'scandals' invented around Hillary in particular. None have come to anything. Millions mis-spent in tax money on what amounts to political slander.
Hillary's emails? Potential mishandling of classified information, violations of record keeping laws, and perjury. That's significant, and has nothing to do with her gender.
Which investigation do you think was mere bullying and not about something significant?
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I'm a libertarian, so I really don't want any of the major U.S. presidential candidates to win. But some of my political friends in both the right and left have a phrase I was reminded of while reading this article. It's "Vox-splaining" The idea is that certain news outlets or articles exist based on the premise that those dumb voters! What they really just need is a patient…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.
Sure its easy to argue if you're not one to need evidence to form opinions, but mere possibilities.
> a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Clinton Foundation is supposed to be a charity but they spend almost nothing on charity - their expenses are 'conferences', trips, meetings - basically Bill and Hillary's personal expense account for things they cannot bill to the government or some other sponsor. Also, they can make ads that promote 'narrative' and the 'personal brand' of Hillary.
Can you provide evidence for these claims?
> High Hopes for Hillary Clinton, Then Disappointment in Haiti
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).
Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search: A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1] B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well this is exactly what fta is about. People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians.
> Well this is exactly what fta is about No, tfa explicitly downplays this. > People also give this kind of money to famous non politicians. Only famous non-politicians have interesting and specific things to say (e.g. someone like Malcom Gladwell, etc). Few care what a politician has to say, after all they hear what they have to say all the time, in interviews, public statements, campaign speeches, etc.
Malcolm Gladwell is paid to be a presentable face for the tobacco, banking and pharma industries:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure its easy to argue if you're not one to need evidence to form opinions, but mere possibilities.
There's more than enough evidence that she used her influence to help people who gave her money, too much to list here, so here's one extreme example: > a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...