American Politics

[kkck]

I still do not get why the speeches are a problem.
The money she got due to those were peanuts compared to her overall wealth and also to the money she received in total for her campaign, and she held speeches to many opposing interest groups, with goldman sachs just being one of the many (most money she got for speeches was not from banks at all).

I don't see this as a flaw because nothing points to anything goldman sachs could conceivably have in their hand to influence clinton.
Goldman Sachs supported obama over clinton back then, and in this election they were not an exspecially huge donor.
Why would clinton feel any obligation to them just because she held a speech and got paid for it (after all, clinton's insight on political players IS valuable for banks).

Clinton should have been more open about it to begin with.
Instead of using euphemism and usual political talk like 'i got paid for services outside of my political duty as a private person' or something like that, she coulda just said 'ya i got money from them because i am actually competent and they wanted my advice'.
I think people coulda swallowed that a lot better if she just went full frontal.

But in any case, clinton lost and i don't get why people still bring her up.
Whatever happened with the DNC and clintonis over.

By now people have to face the truth: They elected a candidate which is horribly incompetent, probably corrupt and russia's pet and flirting with fascists.
And that was a bad idea, no matter how much they disliked clinton.

It's not like there weren't other republican or democrat candidates who coulda won.
The orange loser won over somewhat sane republicans, too.

Well, look at it from the perspective of a US democrat or liberal or independent. One of their main current goals is to get money out of politics so to speak. Primarily through limiting donations to politicians and whatnot. They want their politicians to not be tied to big money via the big money they get from them. They want politicians to focus on stuff the vast majority of citizens need. That is not only their main goal right now, it is the absolute core of being a progressive at the US. Which is why obama for instance, however popular he was, gets so much criticism from the progressive aisle as a generic corporate democrat. So imagine obama taking vasts amounts of shit from that aisle of politics... which is not even a fringe area of the US left anymore but rather an important group which actually has a chance of taking over the democratic party within the next few years. Imagine how they view hillary clinton. Who not only accepts donations from the immensely wealthy but also takes money personally through "speeches". So if even obama does not pass the liberal-leftwing-progressive purity test, imagine how they would view hillary who has taken actual millions of dollars from wall streets. It's not illegal but if the core of your ideology at the moment is to get the money out of politics, then the idea of hillary clinton representing you is, reasonably I might add, downright insulting.

And I agree, nothing can really prove hillary clinton has actually done specific things to benefit the people she gets money from. But if the core of your ideology is that money corrupts politics and politicians in favor of the few and the wealthy then why would you even give a crap about that when the core issue is not that she is a criminal but rather that she is taking money specifically from whom you want to take influence away?

And you are absolutely correct, clinton should have been more open about it. But she wasn't. And maybe people wouldn't have believed her even if she was frontal... But that also only makes her an even more flawed candidate.

Agreed, trump winning is a worst case scenario. But that that doesn't change how flawed clinton was. The only reason to vote for her is every alternative thinking climate change is not a thing (which in no uncertain terms makes you a moron), doesn't understand net neutrality, thinks the world is 6000 years old (which is objectively stupid), that supply side economics are still a thing and jesus supports it and god knows what other abject idiocy.

 

[shionoro]

And I agree, nothing can really prove hillary clinton has actually done specific things to benefit the people she gets money from. But if the core of your ideology is that money corrupts politics and politicians in favor of the few and the wealthy then why would you even give a crap about that when the core issue is not that she is a criminal but rather that she is taking money specifically from whom you want to take influence away?

My point is that there is not even a good reason to assume the peanuts clinton got for her speeches (compared to her personal wealth or even campaign donations) would be anything that the people who gave her money could reasonably assume would make her be nice to them.

More of clinton's campaign money came form universities than from banks, and i never heard anyone saying clinton was a pet of the education sector.
And that is what upsets me.

People jump on the EVERYONE IS CORRUPT train just because politicians have to do with rich people or are rich.
Obama is a millionaire who went onto a private island right after his presidency was over, of his rich friend.
Obama got more donations from Goldman sachs than clinton did in BOTH campaigns (each, not summed up).
But obama instilled bank regulations (moderate ones, but things trump wants to overturn now), why would i assume that then clinton, who got less money from them, would be more likely to be a pet of the wallstreet?
It makes no sense.
It is just feeling because people think 'OOOH SHE TALKD TO THESE GOLDMAN GUYS SHE IS EVIL' just like when people assume politicians are fine and friendly with dictators just because they shake their hand at some official meeting.
There are corrupt politicians, certainly, and i think Trump is one of them.
But not because politicians get paid for speeches or get money from super banks that are from the financial sector.

I wouldnt know that clinton ever abused even a cent of taxpayer money. She got money for holding speeches, like bill clinton AFTER his presidency did since decades, when it was not even foreseeable that hillary clinton would ever really be relevant again aside from being new york senator (and bill got more than her, MUCH more).

And you are absolutely correct, clinton should have been more open about it. But she wasn't. And maybe people wouldn't have believed her even if she was frontal... But that also only makes her an even more flawed candidate.

I just think it is so childish to try to blame clinton for being not good at communicating but not blame the american people who votes trump for taking a psycho over someone who is bad at communicating.
It is clinton's fault that she didn't gain the trust of many people, okay, but it certainly is not her fault that 40% of the US want a racist candidate riddled of corruption (or at least are swayed by that clown throwing dirt just because the other candidate is a bit stiff).
I really don't like blaming the democrats for that.
A Woman can blame the divorce on her partner because he was distant and apathetic, but she cannot blame choosing a violent drug addict over her kinda blant prior relationship on the bland guy.

 

[M3J]

So, anyone know what Trump meant by Sweden's incident?

 

[z.5]

So, anyone know what Trump meant by Sweden's incident?

Yeah, he meant that he will say anything at all, without checking if something is real or not.

Nothing happened in Sweden.

I guess if you were really being kind to him, you could try to argue the distrust of migrants in Sweden - or perhaps the number of Swedish people who have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight. Or perhaps you could go with the White House position that he was 'speaking about a general rise in crime', or some other BS.

... if you were really being kind.

But we all know that was not what he was talking about.

I dunno if he genuinely believed that there had been an attack (or planned one) in Sweden, but that was certainly what he was alluding to.


ah, his Twitter says it was about a fox news article about immigrants

 

[kkck]

My point is that there is not even a good reason to assume the peanuts clinton got for her speeches (compared to her personal wealth or even campaign donations) would be anything that the people who gave her money could reasonably assume would make her be nice to them.

More of clinton's campaign money came form universities than from banks, and i never heard anyone saying clinton was a pet of the education sector.
And that is what upsets me.

People jump on the EVERYONE IS CORRUPT train just because politicians have to do with rich people or are rich.
Obama is a millionaire who went onto a private island right after his presidency was over, of his rich friend.
Obama got more donations from Goldman sachs than clinton did in BOTH campaigns (each, not summed up).
But obama instilled bank regulations (moderate ones, but things trump wants to overturn now), why would i assume that then clinton, who got less money from them, would be more likely to be a pet of the wallstreet?
It makes no sense.
It is just feeling because people think 'OOOH SHE TALKD TO THESE GOLDMAN GUYS SHE IS EVIL' just like when people assume politicians are fine and friendly with dictators just because they shake their hand at some official meeting.
There are corrupt politicians, certainly, and i think Trump is one of them.
But not because politicians get paid for speeches or get money from super banks that are from the financial sector.

I wouldnt know that clinton ever abused even a cent of taxpayer money. She got money for holding speeches, like bill clinton AFTER his presidency did since decades, when it was not even foreseeable that hillary clinton would ever really be relevant again aside from being new york senator (and bill got more than her, MUCH more).


I just think it is so childish to try to blame clinton for being not good at communicating but not blame the american people who votes trump for taking a psycho over someone who is bad at communicating.
It is clinton's fault that she didn't gain the trust of many people, okay, but it certainly is not her fault that 40% of the US want a racist candidate riddled of corruption (or at least are swayed by that clown throwing dirt just because the other candidate is a bit stiff).
I really don't like blaming the democrats for that.
A Woman can blame the divorce on her partner because he was distant and apathetic, but she cannot blame choosing a violent drug addict over her kinda blant prior relationship on the bland guy.

Peanuts? The clintons are worth well over 150 mil in paid speeches alone. That is in no form or context peanuts. The leaked emails spoke of the clintons having over 60 million IIRC in incoming paid speeches as well.

From what I can tell, obama does get a bunch of crap for being a "corporate" democrat. He hasn't escaped anything in that regard. And certainly going to his friends private island does not help him among the people he would claim as his base.

The issue in the context of those speeches is that hillary, and other democrats, are supposed to be for wall street regulation. Preventing the stuff that lead to the recession. Which did have a number of abuses on wall street's part. And you do that via regulation which had been slowly evaporating over the past few decades. With obama, you already had him going in that direction but being somewhat light on it as a while. And now you have hillary who has taken hundreds of millions from at least many firms which she is supposed to regulate. If your objective is to regulate wall street, it is more than reasonable to scream "LIAR" if the person offering this to you has taken literal hundreds of millions from them. Going a bit further, it is not only reasonable, such a thing is freaking common sense. I mean, if a politician offers you a bunch of green energy policies and then you find out he has been taking donations from oil companies, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to question whether he will pull through with this?

Hillary clinton is absolutely to blame for not being a good communicator. Who else would you blame? And the issue here is not her being a bad communicator. The issue here is clear and obvious transparency breaches... And people being too stupid too actually tell what of the stuff being said about her is reliable. And thinking that somehow trump's baggage was somehow preferable to clinton's.

I am not suggesting hillary has abused tax payer money. Or even her foundation money for that manner. If anything as far as I know (though I don't rule out missing information) is that her record on either is pristine.

 

[shionoro]

Peanuts? The clintons are worth well over 150 mil in paid speeches alone. That is in no form or context peanuts. The leaked emails spoke of the clintons having over 60 million IIRC in incoming paid speeches as well.

From what I can tell, obama does get a bunch of crap for being a "corporate" democrat. He hasn't escaped anything in that regard. And certainly going to his friends private island does not help him among the people he would claim as his base.

Emphasis on THE CLINTONS, as in, Bill clinton who got money for speeches since a decade and then hillary clinton who added like 20 million to that in a campaign that cost her more than a billion.
And of these 20 million, only a fraction was from banks.

And i still don't get how it is unethical to get money for political inside knowledge. Someone who already gave you the money has no control over you.
What would the bank do if clinton did something they didn't like? Ask for the money to be given back?

The issue in the context of those speeches is that hillary, and other democrats, are supposed to be for wall street regulation. Preventing the stuff that lead to the recession. Which did have a number of abuses on wall street's part. And you do that via regulation which had been slowly evaporating over the past few decades. With obama, you already had him going in that direction but being somewhat light on it as a while. And now you have hillary who has taken hundreds of millions from at least many firms which she is supposed to regulate. If your objective is to regulate wall street, it is more than reasonable to scream "LIAR" if the person offering this to you has taken literal hundreds of millions from them. Going a bit further, it is not only reasonable, such a thing is freaking common sense. I mean, if a politician offers you a bunch of green energy policies and then you find out he has been taking donations from oil companies, wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable to question whether he will pull through with this?

Which hundreds of millions?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
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.

I don't like CNN as source, but i read that also on a more credible source but i won't dig it out again now.
In any case, they money clinton ACTUALLY got from big banks was, as i said, peanuts compared to her personal wealth and to the money she got for her campaign by other donors anyway.
Both clintons together got 10 million tops from big banks since 2001 (with Bill giving the majority of speeches) and they each have a personal wealth of arround 70 million dollars.
So ...in which way are they dependend on a bank that they gave a speech to and got money from em when that is just a tiny fraction of the money they even got for the damn speeches?

It is absolutely unreasonable to scream liar in that case. It is the opposite of reasonable because there is literally nothing pointing to that except that some big banks did hire her because big banks can actually benefit from political inside knowledge in an absolutely legal way.

And btw, if a green, in a time he was not active in politics, gave paid speeches to oilcorps, then NO i would not be suspicious, because i don't condemn lobbyists because i know that they are not pure evil.
Lobbyists from oil companies for example benefit from inside knowledge exspecially from greens because they will be able to better understand what kind of compromises they can find with them (with greens being a major roadblock for them, so an important group to understand).
That is a thing that becomes clear from political reality when you go past the 'look at him he talks to corporate people, so he is evil' way of thinking.

My problem is that people completely ignore that reality and rather rally for a shitstorm without even knowing how a politician works (and HAS TO work).

It is a PLUS if a politician has good relations to wallstreet and understands their business and has contacts, because then he will be able to easier find comrpomises with them for regulations instead of blindly just doing things.
That is always under the assumption that there is no actual conflict of interests, obviously.
If someone from wallstreet goes into politics and then runs for president, yes, then i would agree that person might have a hidden agenda.
But if someone who has a fine trackrecord gives paid speeches to many different groups (with opposing interests) and just some of them are banks (a tiny fraction, to be more exact), then no, i don't see a conflict of interest.

 

[Aonori]

Emphasis on THE CLINTONS, as in, Bill clinton who got money for speeches since a decade and then hillary clinton who added like 20 million to that in a campaign that cost her more than a billion.
And of these 20 million, only a fraction was from banks.

And i still don't get how it is unethical to get money for political inside knowledge. Someone who already gave you the money has no control over you.
What would the bank do if clinton did something they didn't like? Ask for the money to be given back?

It´s still a investment nonetheless, creates a lot of uneeded bias and a problem like the thing with the journalists, is it ok, to work under the ethically correct norms, or more biased on the Money they receive rather than the necessarily more accurate truths?

Except the Clintons wouldnt be doing any of that without severe repercutions, no bank would invest in politics without guarantees and particular interests in mind, that would be insane, if a bank invests in a politician it´s cause they want something back and not necessarily out of their good will.

 

[kkck]

Emphasis on THE CLINTONS, as in, Bill clinton who got money for speeches since a decade and then hillary clinton who added like 20 million to that in a campaign that cost her more than a billion.
And of these 20 million, only a fraction was from banks.

And i still don't get how it is unethical to get money for political inside knowledge. Someone who already gave you the money has no control over you.
What would the bank do if clinton did something they didn't like? Ask for the money to be given back?

Which hundreds of millions?

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
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.

I don't like CNN as source, but i read that also on a more credible source but i won't dig it out again now.
In any case, they money clinton ACTUALLY got from big banks was, as i said, peanuts compared to her personal wealth and to the money she got for her campaign by other donors anyway.
Both clintons together got 10 million tops from big banks since 2001 (with Bill giving the majority of speeches) and they each have a personal wealth of arround 70 million dollars.
So ...in which way are they dependend on a bank that they gave a speech to and got money from em when that is just a tiny fraction of the money they even got for the damn speeches?

It is absolutely unreasonable to scream liar in that case. It is the opposite of reasonable because there is literally nothing pointing to that except that some big banks did hire her because big banks can actually benefit from political inside knowledge in an absolutely legal way.

And btw, if a green, in a time he was not active in politics, gave paid speeches to oilcorps, then NO i would not be suspicious, because i don't condemn lobbyists because i know that they are not pure evil.
Lobbyists from oil companies for example benefit from inside knowledge exspecially from greens because they will be able to better understand what kind of compromises they can find with them (with greens being a major roadblock for them, so an important group to understand).
That is a thing that becomes clear from political reality when you go past the 'look at him he talks to corporate people, so he is evil' way of thinking.

My problem is that people completely ignore that reality and rather rally for a shitstorm without even knowing how a politician works (and HAS TO work).

It is a PLUS if a politician has good relations to wallstreet and understands their business and has contacts, because then he will be able to easier find comrpomises with them for regulations instead of blindly just doing things.
That is always under the assumption that there is no actual conflict of interests, obviously.
If someone from wallstreet goes into politics and then runs for president, yes, then i would agree that person might have a hidden agenda.
But if someone who has a fine trackrecord gives paid speeches to many different groups (with opposing interests) and just some of them are banks (a tiny fraction, to be more exact), then no, i don't see a conflict of interest.

Come on, now you are borderline trolling me... Why in gods name would it be even vaguely reasonable to separate bill from hillary in this case? That's asinine.... Specially considering what we know regarding how they use the foundation and their political power to get said speeches. When you ask "which hundreds of millions?" all I can say is point to the very article you mentioned to the part where it specifically and literally says 150 million...

What do you mean what would they do... It's easy, they wouldn't give them any more money. Of course they won't get it back...

If you would trust the hypothetical green after that, then you are neglecting common sense. Why even risk taking that bet? I agree in that companies and corporations and people aren't pure evil. But why risk this? It's asinine. Not to mention that the whole thing about big money influencing policy is not even a controversial topic. It takes 5 minutes of googling to find a number of studies from a number of universities making the point that the very donations you claim are just fine and dandy and part of the process and whatnot actually have an effect here in nudging things towards the folk making the donations. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is the actual reality we live in.

Of course it is good for a politicians to have good relations with wall street. And banks. And corporations. That is how it should work. However if policy is being determined by their money interest rather than what actually benefits people and their ability to consume then you have a problem.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 22, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 22, 2017 ---

On another note, looking to the future, it seems like elizabeth warren is getting increased amount of support from the democratic party and their base. Any chances of her actually running for president next time around? How would republicans react to that?

 

[xi0]

How would republicans react to that?

To a loud and angry woman who has repeatedly insulted the god emperor? You can probably figure that question out on your own.

 

[kkck]

To a loud and angry woman who has repeatedly insulted the god emperor? You can probably figure that question out on your own.

Well, yes, but I meant something a bit more specific this time around. Realistically speaking, if she is looking strong then republicans are going to start trying to destroy her image fairly soon. I guess we might soon see how warren handles a smear campaign vs how clinton did.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I get why people do like Elizabeth Warren (how she handled the hearings of the Wells Fargo issue and how she doesn't take shit from anyone), and I happened to like her, but I'm just not sure how she'll fare if she ever plans to run for Office. She may have been more likable than Hillary Clinton tho.

 

[M3J]

Yeah, he meant that he will say anything at all, without checking if something is real or not.

Nothing happened in Sweden.

I guess if you were really being kind to him, you could try to argue the distrust of migrants in Sweden - or perhaps the number of Swedish people who have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight. Or perhaps you could go with the White House position that he was 'speaking about a general rise in crime', or some other BS.

... if you were really being kind.

But we all know that was not what he was talking about.

I dunno if he genuinely believed that there had been an attack (or planned one) in Sweden, but that was certainly what he was alluding to.


ah, his Twitter says it was about a fox news article about immigrants

Ah, thanks.

Did his Twitter say that days or hours after he tweeted about Sweden? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure he was either lying or got mixed up with another country.

Or he's just being deceitful because he knows his supporters are dumb enough to believe anything.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hief-pruitts-work-with-oil-gas-companies.html

So uh... yeah, I'm just here waiting for the country to turn into a No Man's Land with a butchered environment.

 

[z.5]

Ah, thanks.

Did his Twitter say that days or hours after he tweeted about Sweden? Otherwise, I'm pretty sure he was either lying or got mixed up with another country.

Or he's just being deceitful because he knows his supporters are dumb enough to believe anything.

Dunno exactly when he made his speech, but his Twitter remark was made on 19th Feb @ 1:57pm

My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.

He probably just heard Fox say it, believed it (because he is a moron and doesn't bother checking anything) and so instantly said it, as it fits with his rhetoric.

The problem is that he knows he can say whatever he likes, then issue a statement to justify/correct what he said, as most people won't remember his later statement and the damage will already be done.
It isn't really all that new of a technique to spread false information.

 

[shionoro]

Come on, now you are borderline trolling me... Why in gods name would it be even vaguely reasonable to separate bill from hillary in this case? That's asinine.... Specially considering what we know regarding how they use the foundation and their political power to get said speeches. When you ask "which hundreds of millions?" all I can say is point to the very article you mentioned to the part where it specifically and literally says 150 million...

Why?`Noone ever was upset about Bill Clinton holding speeches since 2001.
150 million just for Hillary Clinton in a year would be a significant amount, yes.
150 million for Bill AND Hillary Clinton in 15 years are not that much.
10 Million from big banks for Hillary Clinton are hardly worth talking about.

What do you mean what would they do... It's easy, they wouldn't give them any more money. Of course they won't get it back...

And how is that a lever? A Woman with 70 million (and a similarly rich husband) won't get any more money from big banks....who were not even the biggest givers. Hillary Clinton got most speech money from other sources than big banks, so how is it a lever if they won't give her money anymore when she and her husband are rich to begin with and even if they need more can use other sources?
Added to that, them not giving her more money can only happen if she becomes president when she is in her 70's. Then she is president for at least 4 years, which does add some income too, and only after that, when she is close to dying and still has her own wealth and the wealth of her family, only then she MAYBE won't get more money by the big banks who were responsible for a little bit of her overall income.
And that is a big if, since the banks didn't donate her money. I am pretty sure that big banks value political insight of an ex president over their pride.

There really is not a lever to be found here.

People act like Clinton didn't give the banks something back for the money they gave her.
Clinton is in no way dependend on the money she received. Not even remotely.

If you would trust the hypothetical green after that, then you are neglecting common sense. Why even risk taking that bet? I agree in that companies and corporations and people aren't pure evil. But why risk this? It's asinine. Not to mention that the whole thing about big money influencing policy is not even a controversial topic. It takes 5 minutes of googling to find a number of studies from a number of universities making the point that the very donations you claim are just fine and dandy and part of the process and whatnot actually have an effect here in nudging things towards the folk making the donations. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is the actual reality we live in.

I do not say money does not influence politics. We saw that just latly with Betsy DeVos.
I am saying that in this incident, the money Clinton got from big banks were peanuts compared to her own wealth and compared to the money her campaign mustered up.
It was also only just a fraction of the money she got for speeches.
It is a complete neglect of logic to think that clinton of all people would be a pet of wallstreet due to that.
Politicians holding such speeches and getting huge amounts for that is a very common thing. And that is because their political insight is valuable.
You can argue about outlawing that because it might lead to controversy, but even then, in this particular incident, it makes absolute no sense to say that there is any lever of big banks on clinton due to her speeches.
Not giving her more money is definitely no such lever.

On another note, looking to the future, it seems like elizabeth warren is getting increased amount of support from the democratic party and their base. Any chances of her actually running for president next time around? How would republicans react to that?

I sure hope so. Warren has her own problems right now (her biggest support are rather radical leftists who will give her trouble for every time she finds an actual consensus instead of going extreme), but I think she is positioning herself as a popular oppositional leader which could lead to a succesful run in 4 years or sooner.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 23, 2017 ---

s still a investment nonetheless, creates a lot of uneeded bias and a problem like the thing with the journalists, is it ok, to work under the ethically correct norms, or more biased on the Money they receive rather than the necessarily more accurate truths?

Except the Clintons wouldnt be doing any of that without severe repercutions, no bank would invest in politics without guarantees and particular interests in mind, that would be insane, if a bank invests in a politician it´s cause they want something back and not necessarily out of their good will.

Speeches are not an investment.
Speeches are interesting for banks because banks get their inside knowledge due to that, which is very important for future investments.

Clinton telling them inside knowledge about the personality of, for example, people like middle eastern leaders, about political situations and problems in different countries and so on is very valuable.
That is why she gets paid for it.

You can see that a lot of politicians who will never be active in high profile politics again get money for such speeches.

 

[SharkBait]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hief-pruitts-work-with-oil-gas-companies.html

So uh... yeah, I'm just here waiting for the country to turn into a No Man's Land with a butchered environment.

Public outcrey usually keeps companies such as these in check more so than fines for breaking regulations (i mean look how fast an oil company can pay off oil spill damages).

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 23, 2017 ---

Dont understand why people are mad about Trumps stance on letting states decide their Bathroom rights. People should be glad States have the right to decide. If youre not happy just move to another state. Easy peasy.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Public outcrey usually keeps companies such as these in check more so than fines for breaking regulations (i mean look how fast an oil company can pay off oil spill damages).

But a public outcry isn't always enough tho. Sure, there's always Economic Protest (most effective type of protest; worked out well with Nike), but regulations tend to keep companies in check if they ever caused such damage to the environment.

 

[shionoro]

Dont understand why people are mad about Trumps stance on letting states decide their Bathroom rights. People should be glad States have the right to decide. If youre not happy just move to another state. Easy peasy.

It is like letting states decide whether they want to have a toilet for black and for white people.

 

[SharkBait]

I think if youre going to be letting people choose bathrooms, then its only fair that citizens get to vote on who should use the bathrooms that theyll be using them with. The beauty of democracy is that popular voting for states leads to the right decisions made.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 23, 2017, Original Post Date: Feb 23, 2017 ---

But a public outcry isn't always enough tho. Sure, there's always Economic Protest (most effective type of protest; worked out well with Nike), but regulations tend to keep companies in check if they ever caused such damage to the environment.

If regulations worked, then why did even EPA fall victim to causing an oil spill or even being a cause of the flint water crisis. If regulations worked why have oil spills happened/continued to happen, or defunct power plants having their toxic byproducts emptied into the environment?

 

[kkck]

Why?`Noone ever was upset about Bill Clinton holding speeches since 2001.
150 million just for Hillary Clinton in a year would be a significant amount, yes.
150 million for Bill AND Hillary Clinton in 15 years are not that much.
10 Million from big banks for Hillary Clinton are hardly worth talking about.

And how is that a lever? A Woman with 70 million (and a similarly rich husband) won't get any more money from big banks....who were not even the biggest givers. Hillary Clinton got most speech money from other sources than big banks, so how is it a lever if they won't give her money anymore when she and her husband are rich to begin with and even if they need more can use other sources?
Added to that, them not giving her more money can only happen if she becomes president when she is in her 70's. Then she is president for at least 4 years, which does add some income too, and only after that, when she is close to dying and still has her own wealth and the wealth of her family, only then she MAYBE won't get more money by the big banks who were responsible for a little bit of her overall income.
And that is a big if, since the banks didn't donate her money. I am pretty sure that big banks value political insight of an ex president over their pride.

There really is not a lever to be found here.

People act like Clinton didn't give the banks something back for the money they gave her.
Clinton is in no way dependend on the money she received. Not even remotely.

I do not say money does not influence politics. We saw that just latly with Betsy DeVos.
I am saying that in this incident, the money Clinton got from big banks were peanuts compared to her own wealth and compared to the money her campaign mustered up.
It was also only just a fraction of the money she got for speeches.
It is a complete neglect of logic to think that clinton of all people would be a pet of wallstreet due to that.
Politicians holding such speeches and getting huge amounts for that is a very common thing. And that is because their political insight is valuable.
You can argue about outlawing that because it might lead to controversy, but even then, in this particular incident, it makes absolute no sense to say that there is any lever of big banks on clinton due to her speeches.
Not giving her more money is definitely no such lever.

I sure hope so. Warren has her own problems right now (her biggest support are rather radical leftists who will give her trouble for every time she finds an actual consensus instead of going extreme), but I think she is positioning herself as a popular oppositional leader which could lead to a succesful run in 4 years or sooner.

Hillary has been taking crap for years regarding the money they receive from donations. The only difference with bill is that he hasn't had any position in government since his presidency ended. And come on, 10 million dollars a year in paid speeches and 10 million from banks is an insane amount of money... And yes, giving speeches is normal in this sort of situation. But that does not mean it is ok.

So.... trust clinton because she is so rich that there is no chance the money she is given will influence her decisions? Come on, under that logic I would have to believe trump also isn't beholden to the people who donated money to his campaign. And yet, devos basically bought her position as far as we know even though trump has at least hundreds of millions of dollars and is a self proclaimed billionaire.

I am not suggesting giving speeches should be outlawed (I do think campaign donations should be limited though). But if you are worth 150 mil and out of that, 10-20 mil comes from private interest which consistently lobby the government then you should be treated accordingly (and I do think it is absolutely reasonable to be highly suspicious of this). And you know, you might have a point where it not for the actual emails that detail how clinton actually gets these speeches in the first place.

I don't think her support comes only from the radical left. Isn't she popular among regular democrats as well? At the very least they won't object to her.