4 ms·

It's absurd to the point of being disingenuous that you ignore the mountains of systemic corruption and sweet heart laws and legal protections and lack of prose

It's absurd to the point of being disingenuous that you ignore the mountains of systemic corruption and sweet heart laws and legal protections and lack of prosecutions these firms which pay politicians receive.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Probably because nobody to my knowledge has made any cogent attempt to link these speeches to any "sweet heart laws" or other special legal protections. For that matter, I'm not aware of any specific accusation that Clinton drove the creation of any such protection for a U.S. company as secretary of state, whether related to her speeches or not. The only case I know of is the State Department's opposition to a minimum-wage increase in Haiti. And this, while I find it objectionable, was clearly done to further U.S. interests as a whole, not to favor one U.S. industry or interest group over another. It's mercantilist, but its not corrupt. If there are indeed "mountains" of such examples, I expect that HN community should be able to come up with at least a few good examples, no? (But note: legitimate policy choices with which you happen to disagree are not necessarily evidence of corruption.)
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Now you're just plain lying. Clinton has been strongly against re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. She does this because she's sold out to Wall Street, since obviously they don't want that law back on the books either.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    > which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. Probably not. The biggest players in the collapse, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and AIG, were not commercial banks that would have been restrained under Glass-Steagal. In fact, much of the financial structure that eventually collapsed in 2008 began to accumulate well before GLBA in 1999. And, again, I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. More importantly, you're ignoring the fact that Clinton does support Dodd-Frank, as well as improvements to Dodd-Frank that would be better suited to address the causes of the 2008 collapse than just reinstating Glass-Steagal. So, she supports fairly robust new bank regulations--she just doesn't support your favorite, so you say she's corrupt (and tell me I'm 'lying' by suggesting otherwise--civil!). http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-a... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/0...
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      You actually posted a link from Hillary's own website as supporting evidence? Do you work for her campaign? Your first link is good though, but it also supports reinstating Glass-Steagal (did you read it?). It just makes the case that G-S wouldn't have stopped the 2008 disaster, but that its repeal was part of the same bunch of deregulation that happened at that time period, by the same players. It closes with a call to reinstate G-S, along with other legislation more focused on the actual causes of the 2008 crash, but it does say G-S is a good idea and that the financial system needs as many fail-safes of that kind as it can get. So, going by your first link and ignoring your second one because it's obviously going to be horribly biased, I don't see any non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back G-S, but you do make a good case that G-S wouldn't have avoided the 2008 problem. However, again going by your first link, it does point out that Citigroup and Bank of America were also greatly involved in the 2008 housing crash and they would have been restrained from that by G-S, so I do think it's fair to say that G-S would have helped, though it would not have prevented the crash.
      - pdabbadabba 11y ago
        I posted the link from Clinton's website to demonstrate that she supports policies that regulate Wall Street. What better source is there? If you're going to accuse Clinton of being bought and paid for by Wall Street execs, you might consider actually reading her proposals to regulate Wall Street first. As for the article, yes I did read it. And yes, it supports reinstating Glass Steagal but also says "Clinton's plan is the most substantive response to the Great Recession as it actually happened." If that's true (or even close to true), why is it of such overriding significance whether Clinton also supports Glass Steagal, specifically? She doesn't want to reinstate it because she think's it is unnecessary and she has a different proposal that she thinks is better.
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      >I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. I'd love to hear your attempt at these.
  - uniacid 11y ago
    Would have prevented something is a big assumption, especially when at the time prior to 2008 you had a party in power that wants to away with regulation and maximize military spending on our credit card which compounded issues already going on.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  I have no doubt the Clintons have been careful about hiding any evidence of their corruption. They ran their own private email servers and make sure to create 'legitimate' reasons for all of their policy decisions. As it is they refuse to acknowledge any of this as a conflict of interest and refuse to take steps to reduce the conflicts of interest.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

Probably because nobody to my knowledge has made any cogent attempt to link these speeches to any "sweet heart laws" or other special legal protections. For that matter, I'm not aware of any specific accusation that Clinton drove the creation of any such protection for a U.S. company as secretary of state, whether related to her speeches or not. The only case I know of is the State Department's opposition to a minimum-wage increase in Haiti. And this, while I find it objectionable, was clearly done to further U.S. interests as a whole, not to favor one U.S. industry or interest group over another. It's mercantilist, but its not corrupt. If there are indeed "mountains" of such examples, I expect that HN community should be able to come up with at least a few good examples, no? (But note: legitimate policy choices with which you happen to disagree are not necessarily evidence of corruption.)

Grishnakh 11y ago
Now you're just plain lying. Clinton has been strongly against re-instating the Glass-Steagal Act which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. She does this because she's sold out to Wall Street, since obviously they don't want that law back on the books either.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  > which would have prevented the 2008 disaster. Probably not. The biggest players in the collapse, Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and AIG, were not commercial banks that would have been restrained under Glass-Steagal. In fact, much of the financial structure that eventually collapsed in 2008 began to accumulate well before GLBA in 1999. And, again, I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. More importantly, you're ignoring the fact that Clinton does support Dodd-Frank, as well as improvements to Dodd-Frank that would be better suited to address the causes of the 2008 collapse than just reinstating Glass-Steagal. So, she supports fairly robust new bank regulations--she just doesn't support your favorite, so you say she's corrupt (and tell me I'm 'lying' by suggesting otherwise--civil!). http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-about-glasssteagall http://theweek.com/articles/583243/what-hillary-gets-right-a... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/ https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/0...
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    You actually posted a link from Hillary's own website as supporting evidence? Do you work for her campaign? Your first link is good though, but it also supports reinstating Glass-Steagal (did you read it?). It just makes the case that G-S wouldn't have stopped the 2008 disaster, but that its repeal was part of the same bunch of deregulation that happened at that time period, by the same players. It closes with a call to reinstate G-S, along with other legislation more focused on the actual causes of the 2008 crash, but it does say G-S is a good idea and that the financial system needs as many fail-safes of that kind as it can get. So, going by your first link and ignoring your second one because it's obviously going to be horribly biased, I don't see any non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back G-S, but you do make a good case that G-S wouldn't have avoided the 2008 problem. However, again going by your first link, it does point out that Citigroup and Bank of America were also greatly involved in the 2008 housing crash and they would have been restrained from that by G-S, so I do think it's fair to say that G-S would have helped, though it would not have prevented the crash.
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      I posted the link from Clinton's website to demonstrate that she supports policies that regulate Wall Street. What better source is there? If you're going to accuse Clinton of being bought and paid for by Wall Street execs, you might consider actually reading her proposals to regulate Wall Street first. As for the article, yes I did read it. And yes, it supports reinstating Glass Steagal but also says "Clinton's plan is the most substantive response to the Great Recession as it actually happened." If that's true (or even close to true), why is it of such overriding significance whether Clinton also supports Glass Steagal, specifically? She doesn't want to reinstate it because she think's it is unnecessary and she has a different proposal that she thinks is better.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    >I think you're overlooking the fact that there are non-corrupt reasons to be against bringing back Glass-Steagal. I'd love to hear your attempt at these.
- uniacid 11y ago
  Would have prevented something is a big assumption, especially when at the time prior to 2008 you had a party in power that wants to away with regulation and maximize military spending on our credit card which compounded issues already going on.
shkkmo 11y ago
I have no doubt the Clintons have been careful about hiding any evidence of their corruption. They ran their own private email servers and make sure to create 'legitimate' reasons for all of their policy decisions. As it is they refuse to acknowledge any of this as a conflict of interest and refuse to take steps to reduce the conflicts of interest.