Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Belz...]

Do you not read your own posts?

That is you saying she's the most competent candidate?

Ginger, stop. We KNOW you like Clinton, ok? You don't need to take offense at everything. Your first line above is "do you not read your own posts?", which is insulting in and of itself, but doubly so when you show that you didn't read the post you quoted yourself:

The insinuation that she is too closely associated with the people she's supposed to keep in check -- something we usually call a conflict of interests.

See that bold, large word? It was an explanation that you requested, not a personal endorsement.

I don't think it's my reading comprehension.

It really is.

In addition, you've gone into plain old dishonesty by taking a post where I was refering to a second post, and trying to make it appear as if I was refering to a third instead. That's low, even for you.

How about you stop trying to find offense where none exists and simply accept that you misunderstood what I said? I think Clinton is the most qualified candidate, and that the other candidates are, by and large, not competent to run the USA.

 

[The Big Dog]

How can I be a sexist? Some of my best friends are women. In fact, I'm married to a woman.

Of course you are not sexist, and of course no one is criticizing Hillary because she is a woman.

They are criticizing Hillary because she took $675k from Goldman Sachs while claiming to be against big banks.

On the other hand Your position has thick sexist paint dripping all over your HDS is a pretty effective argument.

Here is my face when I first saw it:

Yikes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How can I be a sexist? Some of my best friends are women. In fact, I'm married to a woman.

"Your position has" is not synonymous with "you are".

In addition, 'sexist' is not synonymous with 'misogynous'. Trump is a sexist, but he isn't a misogynist for example.


I don't pay close enough attention to your posts to judge if you personally are sexist.

 

[The Big Dog]

"Your position has" is not synonymous with "you are".

In addition, 'sexist' is not synonymous with 'misogynous'. Trump is a sexist, but he isn't a misogynist for example.


I don't pay close enough attention to your posts to judge if you personally are sexist.

But what about the thick paint dripping on his HDS?

Why won't anyone think about the thick paint dripping on the HDS?

/gonna change my name to thick paint

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ginger, stop. We KNOW you like Clinton, ok? You don't need to take offense at everything.

Since when is asking what you meant taking offense?

 

[sunmaster14]

Of course you are not sexist, and of course no one is criticizing Hillary because she is a woman.

They are criticizing Hillary because she took $675k from Goldman Sachs while claiming to be against big banks.

On the other hand Your position has thick sexist paint dripping all over your HDS is a pretty effective argument.

Here is my face when I first saw it:

Yikes.

Well, admittedly, we've been denigrating a female. Or is that a fee-male?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Well, admittedly, we've been denigrating a female. Or is that a fee-male?

I may have come over to your side just for the puns.

You have summarized the problem. Do you want a president (and a former president) who see Wall Street and other corporate interests as "their clients?" Some of us think public servants should be serving the public.

But when they are private citizens they should take paying jobs, right?

I don't have a problem with her doing the speeches, and if Sanders didn't exist they wouldn't be a problem. But she failed to anticipate an attack from the left and she left this big low hanging fruit out there. I hope the money was enough.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Well, admittedly, we've been denigrating a female. Or is that a fee-male?

That is funny. Good one!

 

[Belz...]

Since when is asking what you meant taking offense?

I have explained to you what I meant but you insist on thinking that I meant it against Hillary. How is that not taking offense?

STOP acting as if you don't understand anything. I know you can read.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Money Influences Everybody. That Includes Hillary Clinton (April 14, 2016)

Democrats have a decision to make: do they think money in politics is a corrupting force that influences the decisions made by elected officials, or not?

While Clinton called the suggestion that she might be influenced by the wealthy bankers who raise money for her campaign an “artful smear” in 2016, she also had no problem hurling even stronger accusations about Obama in 2008: “Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors – Exelon, a big nuclear power company,” she said. “Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure of the nuclear industry.”

Then there are the closed-door speeches that Clinton gave for Goldman Sachs and other big banks after she left her role as secretary of state. While she has steadfastly refused to release the transcripts, she’s claimed it has never affected her position on the banks one iota. Which is fine, if that’s the principled stance you want to take, but it’s not one her party has had in the past. Mitt Romney was hit hard in the 2012 presidential campaign by Democrats for the speeches he gave to financial institutions.

So which is it? Are politicians corrupt (or susceptible to corruption) if they are giving highly paid speeches behind closed doors to financial institutions, or not? It doesn’t work both ways.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...clinton-banks-oil-links-presidential-campaign

 

[The Don]

Three problems:

1. Goldman Sachs paid her for three separate events after she left the State Department and before she geared up to run for the White House

Why is this a problem ? I understand that there could have been a problem if she was still Secretary of State but as an ex-SoS she was entitled to ply her trade as a corporate speaker.

2. She won't release the transcripts

Depending on the contract that she had with her clients, the intellectual property for that speech may be hers, theirs or a combination of the two. There may even be a confidentiality clause in her contract.

For example, typically the intellectual property for my work belongs to my clients and I'm contractually prohibited from revealing sensitive information. If you asked me to release my transcripts or the documents I have provided to them, I wold be prohibited from doing so.

Asking Hillary to release the transcripts is yet another "Gotcha ! request from her opponents. If she doesn't then she's being evasive, if she does then she's being weak (and then there would be claims that they aren't accurate or the full transcripts.

3. she is a hypocrite.

How so ?

Is it because her clients are in an industry that the public would like to see controlled ? If that's the case then there's an argument that having a good working relationship with this industry would make her more able to get things done.

My experience of the industry is that they're much more inclined to listen to, and change, for someone they consider sympathetic and knowledgeable than someone they consider antipathetic and ignorant.

 

[The Don]

So which is it? Are politicians corrupt (or susceptible to corruption) if they are giving highly paid speeches behind closed doors to financial institutions, or not? It doesn’t work both ways.

IMO they are not corrupt just because they get paid to give speeches behind closed doors. To suggest corruption there'd have to be evidence to show that they are being paid to execute and/or influence policy.

By all means bring up the issue in case there is legitimate doubt, but the candidate should be entitled to mount a robust defence.

Now, if candidates were receiving substantial fees for speaking engagements that never happened or for a one-to-one "speaking engagement" then that would be more suspicious but I'm not aware of that kind of allegation being leveled at any candidate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Why is this a problem ? I understand that there could have been a problem if she was still Secretary of State but as an ex-SoS she was entitled to ply her trade as a corporate speaker.



Depending on the contract that she had with her clients, the intellectual property for that speech may be hers, theirs or a combination of the two. There may even be a confidentiality clause in her contract.

For example, typically the intellectual property for my work belongs to my clients and I'm contractually prohibited from revealing sensitive information. If you asked me to release my transcripts or the documents I have provided to them, I wold be prohibited from doing so.

Asking Hillary to release the transcripts is yet another "Gotcha ! request from her opponents. If she doesn't then she's being evasive, if she does then she's being weak (and then there would be claims that they aren't accurate or the full transcripts.



How so ?

Is it because her clients are in an industry that the public would like to see controlled ? If that's the case then there's an argument that having a good working relationship with this industry would make her more able to get things done.

My experience of the industry is that they're much more inclined to listen to, and change, for someone they consider sympathetic and knowledgeable than someone they consider antipathetic and ignorant.

1. Rebuts the claim she was just getting a standard fee.

2. she controls the transcripts, no need to speculate.

3. You explanation does not respond to the hypocrisy part, and in fact is silly "sympathetic"? Is that what you think people want or ghow Hillary is selling herself. Talk about damning with faint praise.

Release the transcripts and then we will really see.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

#ReleaseTheTranscripts

 

[Belz...]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_6963557111458be400.jpg[/qimg]


#ReleaseTheTranscripts

Prepare for the shock of the second Clinton presidency!

 

[kmortis]

Whilst we understand that little gets the blood pumping like a good old fashioned political debate, attacking your opponents is not allowed here. If you want to engage in ruthless mud-slinging, run for office.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Bernie Earned Less in Year than Hillary Made in Single Speech (April 15, 2016)

Bernie Sanders reportedly earned just over $200,000 in 2014. That same year, Hillary Clinton, Sanders's top Democratic rival, gave about 45 paid speeches, many of which paid her more in a single hour than Sanders made the entire year.

As CNN reported at the beginning of this year, "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 2015, 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."

Here's a list of Hillary Clinton's publicly disclosed paid speeches since leaving the State Department [February 2013], totaling a sweet $21.7 million:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/berni...hillary-made-in-single-speech/article/2001999

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Earned less because he's less talented than the Clintons who are running a 2 billion dollar charity organization like a few other rich philanthropists.

But then there's this little problem for Sanders, seems while he wants the rich to pay more in taxes, that doesn't apply to him, or at least he's a tad embarrassed about the effective tax rate he pays of ~13.5%.

The Clintons, OTOH, don't have any such problem.

 

[The Big Dog]

Earned less because he's less talented than the Clintons who are running a 2 billion dollar charity organization like a few other rich philanthropists.

But then there's this little problem for Sanders, seems while he wants the rich to pay more in taxes, that doesn't apply to him, or at least he's a tad embarrassed about the effective tax rate he pays of ~13.5%.

The Clintons, OTOH, don't have any such problem.

Having sticky palms and no morals like the Clintons is not really a talent.

Damn those Clinton's sure got rich running a "charity."

 

[Bob001]

Earned less because he's less talented than the Clintons who are running a 2 billion dollar charity organization like a few other rich philanthropists.

But then there's this little problem for Sanders, seems while he wants the rich to pay more in taxes, that doesn't apply to him, or at least he's a tad embarrassed about the effective tax rate he pays of ~13.5%.

The Clintons, OTOH, don't have any such problem.

Unless you claim he's done something shady -- and there's no evidence of that -- Sanders and his wife have paid the legally required taxes on their joint income, which includes Social Security payments that are only partially taxable. The Clintons' declared income is more than 130 times the amount of Sanders; do you claim that one rate should be applied to all incomes, or do you think Sanders should be making voluntary contributions to the IRS, or the richest people in the country should only be paying 13%, or what?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/15/politics/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-taxes/index.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-releases-eight-years-of-tax-returns-120882