4 ms·
> never never never to answer one idiom with another, never say never. if a politician was sufficiently transparent about who they met with and took money from
by nqzero 11y ago
> never never never
to answer one idiom with another, never say never. if a politician was sufficiently transparent about who they met with and took money from, acknowledged the potential conflicts of interest, documented decisions, sourced research thru firewalls, and generally had a system in place to prevent the temptation from manifesting, i'd be inclined to trust them
a good regulator might benefit from understanding the impact they're having, and that means talking to businesses. and an honest business that works with a bright and honest politician would have an incentive to help them stay in office, even if that money didn't buy them consideration. so there's potential non-corrupt reasons that these "donations" could happen
that said, i'm not claiming that hillary clinton, or any other politician that i'm aware of, has done this
- quadrangle 11y agoindeed. and my point is that all Hillary had to do to retain some benefit-of-the-doubt was to say "yes, of course, influence happens, but…" blah blah, whatever excuses or transparency or anything. The only thing I was commenting on was the complete unacceptability of claiming to be immune from influence. The "never never never" comment was about trusting someone who claims immunity from bias. All people have biases and influences.