5 ms·

> Very apropos that the very embodiment of corruption, Hillary Clinton Oh come on now. Yes, her entire life is politics and it's hard to trust her. But the emb

by duaneb 10y ago

> Very apropos that the very embodiment of corruption, Hillary Clinton Oh come on now. Yes, her entire life is politics and it's hard to trust her. But the embodiment of corruption? Try Somalia. Or North Korea. Or Afghanistan. Or Eritrea. Or Russia. If Hillary were truly corrupt she wouldn't have made it to the presidential race as one of the most scrutinized human beings living today—being untrustworthy is not the same as being corrupt. Being "woke" is only useful if you actually use it to make good decisions, and the only decision you made today was to complain. In any case, the country is perpetually trampling constitutional rights in order to work out jurisprudence—find me a president who hasn't blatantly violated violated human rights. (Yes, Obama, killing children remotely with drones is an extreme human rights violation.) The court has not stopped functioning as it was intended. If you disagree, become a judge and/or vote for someone with your viewpoints and get them to propagate worthy judges through the system. Now, I happen to think the judge was incorrect, but maybe wait until it fully works its way through the court system before declaring that "the system of laws has broken down". The very fact you threw that in casually leads me to conclude you've never seen anything near anarchy. However, causing irrational civil unrest with panic about government corruption is a good way to accelerate problems—just look at the recent brexit vote.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>Yes, her entire life is politics and it's hard to trust her. But the embodiment of corruption? Yes, corruption personified. The Clintons sit at the center of a criminal nexus of bribes, payoffs, embezzlement and perjury that stretches back decades. From cattle-trading futures, to Whitewater, to hundreds of 6 figure speeches, to countless millions raked in at their foundation, which acts as a giant money laundering machine. If you don't think Hillary is utterly corrupt you haven't learned enough about her. It isn't up for dispute. This is coming from someone who has been a registered Democrat for more then 25 years. >Now, I happen to think the judge was incorrect, but maybe wait until it fully works its way through the court system before declaring that "the system of laws has broken down". The very fact you threw that in casually leads me to conclude you've never seen anything near anarchy. Your are drawing a flawed conclusion. Our government and courts exist to uphold the law and the Constitution. Our President and our government officials swear to uphold the Constitution, nothing about "national security". It isn't a choice between anarchy and the rule of law. There are plenty of dictatorships around the world that don't have anarchy or a functioning legal system where petitioners can find redress from government abuses - and that's the direction we are heading.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  6 figure speeches are corruption personified?
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    Muster any critical thinking ability you have for one second, and ask yourself why banks, corporations and foreign governments would pay Hillary and Bill $225,000 for a one hour speech. Here's a clue: it isn't for the boundless wisdom they are imparting for that hour. $153,000,000 personally to Bill and Hillary Clinton alone, directly into their pockets. That is completely aside from the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled to their slush fund (the Clinton Foundation).
    - comex 10y ago
      Based on your analysis, people who are famous as former holders of prestigious political positions, but who are not likely to hold such positions in the foreseeable future, cannot possibly receive similar speaking fees, right? Because the amount of influence being bought would be at most a fraction of what can be gotten from someone with actual authority, there would be little interest in bribing such people. Such as, say, Al Gore, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, each of whom received hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual speeches after their respective terms (and in Gore's case, long after his presidential run)... http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-high-but-only-compared-with-other-women/ http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-... You know, every time I hear that claim about Clinton's speaking fees - originally from Bernie Sanders, of course - it comes in the form of a sarcastic comment about the content of the speech being incredible to justify the price. I think the sarcasm, the leaving of accusations to implication, makes it easier to make things sound bad without properly addressing the question. Why do those organizations pay people such high amounts for speeches? You listed banks, corporations, and foreign governments, but as the article above notes, one big source of public speaking payments is universities, for things like commencement addresses: why would they in particular, despite being relatively cash-strapped (only relatively! but still-), desire so strongly to make bribes? President Obama recently gave a commencement address at Rutgers. Being in office, he presumably did not charge for it, but the address came after Rutgers "delug[ed] him with petitions" for "three years" [1], so they certainly would have paid. Is this because of the boundless wisdom imparted by that speech? Was the speech, as Sanders said, "written in Shakespearean prose"? If Obama had handed the same speech to a famous orator to deliver in his place, would that have been equally good? Of course not. Well, actually, people probably did value, in terms of pure informational content, hearing the president's opinion about Donald Trump, political correctness, equality, etc. But not enough to care much about learning that information on that particular day, in person, as opposed to watching any other speech of his on YouTube, some other day. To state the blindingly obvious, they valued the speech mostly because of the fact that Obama was standing there and speaking to them. Star power, being honored, whatever you want to call it. Someone who's 'just' a former first lady, a former and (then-)future presidential candidate, and one of the most famous politicians in her party doesn't, of course, have quite as much star power as a sitting president. But she has a lot, and then $225,000 is not a large sum for most of the organizations you mentioned - or even for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. The law of supply and demand is in effect as always. (Members of this site should be well reminded of that by the exorbitant figures involved in famous startup acquisitions.) I am not claiming that influence is not being sought and perhaps obtained, though honestly I suspect it would be more related to psychology than the actual cash payments. But I do claim that it is only one of many reasons she has been sought as a public speaker. It is those who see no alternative between boundless wisdom on one hand and corruption on the other who betray a lack of critical thinking. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/meet-grandmother-who-secured-obama-rutgers-commencement-speaker-n576061 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/meet-grandm...

by duaneb 10y ago

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

>Yes, her entire life is politics and it's hard to trust her. But the embodiment of corruption? Yes, corruption personified. The Clintons sit at the center of a criminal nexus of bribes, payoffs, embezzlement and perjury that stretches back decades. From cattle-trading futures, to Whitewater, to hundreds of 6 figure speeches, to countless millions raked in at their foundation, which acts as a giant money laundering machine. If you don't think Hillary is utterly corrupt you haven't learned enough about her. It isn't up for dispute. This is coming from someone who has been a registered Democrat for more then 25 years. >Now, I happen to think the judge was incorrect, but maybe wait until it fully works its way through the court system before declaring that "the system of laws has broken down". The very fact you threw that in casually leads me to conclude you've never seen anything near anarchy. Your are drawing a flawed conclusion. Our government and courts exist to uphold the law and the Constitution. Our President and our government officials swear to uphold the Constitution, nothing about "national security". It isn't a choice between anarchy and the rule of law. There are plenty of dictatorships around the world that don't have anarchy or a functioning legal system where petitioners can find redress from government abuses - and that's the direction we are heading.

paulddraper 10y ago
6 figure speeches are corruption personified?
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  Muster any critical thinking ability you have for one second, and ask yourself why banks, corporations and foreign governments would pay Hillary and Bill $225,000 for a one hour speech. Here's a clue: it isn't for the boundless wisdom they are imparting for that hour. $153,000,000 personally to Bill and Hillary Clinton alone, directly into their pockets. That is completely aside from the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled to their slush fund (the Clinton Foundation).
  - comex 10y ago
    Based on your analysis, people who are famous as former holders of prestigious political positions, but who are not likely to hold such positions in the foreseeable future, cannot possibly receive similar speaking fees, right? Because the amount of influence being bought would be at most a fraction of what can be gotten from someone with actual authority, there would be little interest in bribing such people. Such as, say, Al Gore, Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, each of whom received hundreds of thousands of dollars for individual speeches after their respective terms (and in Gore's case, long after his presidential run)... http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-high-but-only-compared-with-other-women/ http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-... You know, every time I hear that claim about Clinton's speaking fees - originally from Bernie Sanders, of course - it comes in the form of a sarcastic comment about the content of the speech being incredible to justify the price. I think the sarcasm, the leaving of accusations to implication, makes it easier to make things sound bad without properly addressing the question. Why do those organizations pay people such high amounts for speeches? You listed banks, corporations, and foreign governments, but as the article above notes, one big source of public speaking payments is universities, for things like commencement addresses: why would they in particular, despite being relatively cash-strapped (only relatively! but still-), desire so strongly to make bribes? President Obama recently gave a commencement address at Rutgers. Being in office, he presumably did not charge for it, but the address came after Rutgers "delug[ed] him with petitions" for "three years" [1], so they certainly would have paid. Is this because of the boundless wisdom imparted by that speech? Was the speech, as Sanders said, "written in Shakespearean prose"? If Obama had handed the same speech to a famous orator to deliver in his place, would that have been equally good? Of course not. Well, actually, people probably did value, in terms of pure informational content, hearing the president's opinion about Donald Trump, political correctness, equality, etc. But not enough to care much about learning that information on that particular day, in person, as opposed to watching any other speech of his on YouTube, some other day. To state the blindingly obvious, they valued the speech mostly because of the fact that Obama was standing there and speaking to them. Star power, being honored, whatever you want to call it. Someone who's 'just' a former first lady, a former and (then-)future presidential candidate, and one of the most famous politicians in her party doesn't, of course, have quite as much star power as a sitting president. But she has a lot, and then $225,000 is not a large sum for most of the organizations you mentioned - or even for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. The law of supply and demand is in effect as always. (Members of this site should be well reminded of that by the exorbitant figures involved in famous startup acquisitions.) I am not claiming that influence is not being sought and perhaps obtained, though honestly I suspect it would be more related to psychology than the actual cash payments. But I do claim that it is only one of many reasons she has been sought as a public speaker. It is those who see no alternative between boundless wisdom on one hand and corruption on the other who betray a lack of critical thinking. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/meet-grandmother-who-secured-obama-rutgers-commencement-speaker-n576061 http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/meet-grandm...