Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

no doubt and even if it wasn't explicitly intended as a bribe i think it's impossible to not have a conflict of interest when dealing w/ someone who has paid you a lot of money. but that's different from insinuating that the payment was intended to be a bribe and that's why it's so large.

like i'm sure after obama leaves the WH he will get lots of offers to speak to a variety of groups for lots + lots of money. does that mean they think he'll be returning to politics and will owe them a favor? maybe it means that they want to ask him to introduce them to someone he's met during his years in office, but also maybe it just means they want the prestige associated w/ their institution of having a former POTUS address them.

I said it a few months ago: I don't give a damn about what Clinton might have said; it won't make her less – or more – attractive as a candidate. Call it confirmation bias.

As political strategy, though, maybe saying "speeches for Wall Street" a dozen times a day might have worked even if it would've sullied Sanders' hands. I don't care about his purported purity anyway.

Oh, I see what you're saying, Mordy. I think we're on the same page. The conflict of interest would be the key point for me.

still don't understand why she couldn't just release the transcripts the following day, as soon as she was asked. it's not an unreasonable request to ask for transcripts of the speeches, and it wouldn't have been a controversy if she just would have addressed them and moved on.

i feel like we're overdue for a candidate in one of the two parties dropping dead during the primaries

― Neanderthal, Monday, April 4, 2016 4:19 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I've wondered about the odds of one the candidates not making it to Election Day.

Yeah, you figure that orange clown makeup has to be carcinogenic.

- "This way, Mr. Trump."

- "What, through the kitchen?"

still don't understand why she couldn't just release the transcripts the following day, as soon as she was asked.
--Karl Malone

She's a shitty candidate that's why

here's some more on clinton's climate change plan and why many activists remain skeptical:

ince the start of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton has moved strikingly to the left on climate issues, including opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, offshore drilling and, indeed, most forms of fracking, a drilling technique also known as hydraulic fracturing.

In a debate last month in Flint, Mich., she said she would severely regulate fracking.

“By the time we get through all of my conditions,” she said, “I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.”

But Mr. Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, had a snappy retort: “My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking.”

The absolutism of Mr. Sanders’s position on this and other climate issues — as well as the fact that Mrs. Clinton arrived at her views under pressure from the left — has made many activists mistrustful of her and supportive of Mr. Sanders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-climate-change.html

like i'm sure after obama leaves the WH he will get lots of offers to speak to a variety of groups for lots + lots of money. does that mean they think he'll be returning to politics and will owe them a favor?

well, as you allow, it could be that basically he's still in politics in a meaningful sense and can offer them a favor (connections, introductions, etc.) - - - but setting that aside, i'm not sure how relevant it is. i mean, if the beatles were all alive and reunited they could also command huge fees for short engagements. lots of people get paid lots of money to do lots of things. that doesn't mean that when someone is an active politician and receives enormous sums, for basically no work, from groups that have very active interests in keeping certain legislative avenues closed, we shouldn't raise our eyebrows.

i mean, there are rules forbidding large individual gifts for a reason, right? and "speaking fees" are just a kind of blatant end run around that, where supposedly you are being paid for a service but you don't have to prove that it really happened. suppose we rolled back all the restrictions, and wall street people just like, bought hillary a mansion directly ("what do you prefer, gothic? classical? or something more contemporary? just see my architect on your way out, he's fantastic, we'll take care of everything"), or handed her garbage bags stuffed with hundred dollar bills and were like "we do appreciate your stopping by for a visit and gracing us with your presence - here's a little something to remember our conversation by. oh, don't leave yet, i've ordered dessert and you simply must try maria's ganache" .... would we be like "oh sure but they would do that for lots of people, doesn't mean there's any expectation behind it"...?

Wait a second, what were the dates of the speeches under consideration? Was she actually in office at the time?

(Because the date I'm seeing is October 2013, several months after she was Secretary of State while she was a private citizen; unless the argument you're making is that anyone who goes on the lecture circuit is ineligible to run for office, I don't think you have a supportable position here.)

I mean, at what date was Hillary Clinton neither in office nor effectively running for something? "Wait, you mean the very same Hillary Clinton that we had over for that speech is now running for - for President? Gosh, goes to show you never know where people's lives will take them. I wonder if she remembers the two hundred grand. Nah, probably not, she's a busy lady."

So your position is that you should not be eligible to run for elected office once you've gone on the lecture circuit.

at what date was Hillary Clinton neither in office nor effectively running for something?

looks like the answer is October 2013, for starters

I didn't say anything about ineligibility for office fwiw? My point is only that the "lecture circuit" is manifestly a different thing when we're talking about enormous, set-you-up-for-life sums dispensed to politicians by interest groups, as opposed to elder rock stars giving inspirational commencement speeches or whatever. I think this difference is worth recognizing, and that these things should be regulated and made transparent, so that their bribe-like qualities might be more visible. And Sanders shining light on the speeches hints at some of the troubling aspects of this entire business. I wish he'd make these points more explicitly but so it goes. I'm glad it's a thing people are talking about.

I dunno maybe I'm in some crazy minority but imho it should be troubling when people running for office can thank interest groups for their massive fortunes. Would we not notice if a Republican candidate, during a two-year interregnum between leaving a Cabinet position and running for President, racked up half a million for two speeches to the NRA and the tobacco lobby? The only defenses I can imagine start to sound like Trumpisms. "Sure, I take lots of fees, I speak to people, terrific people. That doesn't mean I owe them anything." I mean, come on. I know I would remember getting a couple hundred grand for a couple hours' work.

BTW, this is something I hadn't really thought about before because it was very in keeping with his core platform but Sanders' crowing about how little he's made off of speaking fees is an incredibly empty boast seeing as he's been an elected official since 1981 and constrained by bribery rules as to what he could reasonably accept as a result; he couldn't get paid massive amounts to give a speech even if he wanted to.

I don't think this is a big GOTCHA against him or anything as nothing in his platform makes me think he has any interest in making $$$$$ off of the lecture route but it seems like something worth footnoting.

and lol at the idea that hillary clinton was not effectively running for president in october 2013. are we talking about the same person?

but basically i think who needs to be scrutinized and regulated are the people handing out the bribes. again, this is not controversial when we're talking about mysterious fur coats and lincoln continentals showing up at the house wrapped in a giant bow. we have laws on the maximum gifts you can give politicians. why is it so weird to bring up the same concepts when the gift is changed to a 'speaking fee'?

making speeches for $200K a pop to wall street people doesn't make someone ineligible to run for president, but it's definitely a salient point to consider, especially when "the high-profile speaker commanding that fee could also be responsible for legislation that governs the person paying the fee", as sund4r succinctly put it upthread.

it's impossible to prove, and i'm not saying it deserves an fbi investigation or anything, but is there any reason that an investment bank should pay someone like hillary clinton a few hundred thousand dollars for an hourlong speech OTHER than doing it to gain influence? is she so phenomenal of a public speaker and financial guru that her thoughts are worth $55.55 per second?

why can't hillary just take their money & then stab them in the back

they paid her to speak & she's not legally obligated to do anything beyond that for them

(nearly) everyone in the position to make bank off of those kinds of speeches does it, but it's still not a good look. and it still doesn't make any sense to not release the transcripts when requested to do so by numerous outlets, whether it's from a PR or transparency perspective. as others have said, it's not like anyone expects that she said "trust me ya big money wall street boyz, i will pay you BACK when i am president, and by that i mean i will deregulate your sector to the greatest extent possible in a relatively low-key way that preserves my chances of re-election!" so just release the damn transcripts already

i was looking around and it seems like her fees were comparable to other blockbuster speakers. whether her observations + thoughts are worth that much is a different question but i do assume that a former first lady, senator + secretary of state would have insight + experiences that normal ppl would not. it's not necessarily specific financial recommendations that they would be seeking but maybe information about stability in various international markets, information about who key decision makers are, etc. plus obv the prestige of having this kind of speaker. i'm not sure it makes sense that in 2013 they were giving her this money to speak bc they assumed she'd be the next POTUS instead of bc of her previous job experience. in hindsight it seems obv that she'd run again but i remember in 2013 seeing lots of stories about how she hadn't decided.

it's not just hillary clinton. i think anyone running for president should feel obligated to disclose transcripts of paid speeches they've given in the recent past. if bernie sanders refused to release a transcript of a speech a lof people would be like O_o

in hindsight it seems obv that she'd run again but i remember in 2013 seeing lots of stories about how she hadn't decided.

iirc the instant she stepped down as secretary of state it was clear that she was running for president. i think it was common wisdom that she was preparing to run for president and it would have been shocking if she did not.

TBF, we don't know that these speeches weren't just hour-long, expletive-filled excoriations of the banking industry, now do we.

Hillary Clinton has been running for president since at least '91, iirc.

that's true, she could be holding them back because she dropped the f-bomb too much while suplexing a commodity derivative market specialists

again, see my beatles comment. i don't disagree that non-politcians can also get big big fees for telling wealthy people/groups/companies that everybody's free to wear sunscreen, or paraphrasing 'oh the places youll go' or whatever. but when it is a politcian, there are obvious conflicts of interests which is why they're not supposed to be able to take huge gifts and bribes. there are loopholes: you can do it while you're not currently in office or officially running, and if you accept the money under this comforting label of 'speaking fee' it's less likely that people will complain about it two years later than if you just take the mansion and the yacht directly.

sanders is basically calling that bluff and seeing if people DO find it suspicious once attention's brought to it. i dunno whether or how it could be regulated exactly, but at the very least, the court of public opinion might shift us to a point where people who take these sackfuls of cash are seen as 'bought' and consequently can't get votes.

as to why not release them: i suspect that at first she probably just figured it was a non-scandal that would blow over and sanders would either look bad for sticking to it, or just give it up after gaining no traction with it. it doesn't seem to have hurt him, and maybe now backing off would look bad in itself. could also be that the speeched are so empty and vaporous that, now that there is attention on them, they become campaign ad fodder. ''Hillary Clinton's Wall Street friends paid her x dollars a word for her insight. What did she have to tell them? (Quote most empty section.) Very insightful. Is that really all Goldman Sachs expected for their money? When the chips are down, whose side do you think Hillary Clinton will be on?'' That needs a lot of polish obv but I think the contents of the texts might be mobilizable in a way that the idea of 'the speeches' isn't, by itself. idk.

welp

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/717003103871115267

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2016/04/BENNETT.jpg&w=1484

we'll have the last laugh, just wait! stupid lamestream media.

Did that say..."no more oreos - Donald trump" or have I finally just lost my mind completely.

I too am wondering if I have actually gone insane.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/18/trump-s-oreo-boycott.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5zjVUZA7rY

^from back in september

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfHwqbCUIAEbhB6.jpg

oh thank god this all is referring to the actual cookies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZK9vrBNRys

The NYT with one of its where-did-it-go-wrong stories about Sanders.

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, April 4, 2016 6:39 AM (5 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

What I take away is that Sanders himself is awesome and that the people running his campaign are kinda assholes.

― Frederik B, Monday, April 4, 2016 7:16 AM (5 hours ago)

once this is all over, i really hope this is going to be the takeaway certain people have -- people who for whatever reason have devoted a lot of their time to attacking sanders and his message and tactics. he genuinely seems to be a fundamentally decent human being, something that can't be said of a lot of politicians, let alone national ones

(tbh i don't think anything in that article painted sanders' team in a particularly unfavorable light either. tbh i find the recoil at what are perceived to be the "attacks" coming out of the sanders camp pretty funny -- it's like people have completely forgotten about 2008, or maybe arent paying attention to the current GOP race. (sanders' supporters, esp those on social media, are another story otoh))

from that story btw:

Several prominent Democrats say that a different candidate — one with more history in the South and more experience with black voters — might have been able to beat Mrs. Clinton. Some singled out Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who considered seeking the nomination.

“Biden could have competed among African-Americans far better than Sanders and possibly stopped Clinton from getting the delegate lead she has,” said Joseph P. Riley Jr., a former mayor of Charleston, S.C., who is a Biden ally and supports Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

it's amazing to me how clueless some apparent dem insiders can be. someone, i think jamelle bouie, pointed this out on twitter last night, but basically anything bad you can say about hillary from the 90s -- and there is plenty bad to say -- biden was just as bad or worse. HRC supported (and made some pretty awful comments about) the crime bill -- biden wrote it. biden was as cozy with the financial and credit card industries as anyone in congress in the 80s and 90s. biden voted for the iraq war too. (though, to his credit, he's certainly more dovish than clinton these days.) the list goes on

why can't hillary just take their money & then stab them in the back

― ejemplo (crüt), Monday, April 4, 2016 11:53 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

they paid her to speak & she's not legally obligated to do anything beyond that for them

― ejemplo (crüt), Monday, April 4, 2016 11:54 AM (33 minutes ago)

can't tell if you're being facetious but if not you may not understand the idea of conflict of interest

btw to sort of synthesize a few points about this upthread: as a private citizen HRC is perfectly entitled to give speeches to whomever she wants. doesn't mean it's not fair game on the campaign trail, tho

Kind of curious what the effect would be on the market for the supposed insights if it was clear that they'd be in the papers a month later.

Now that "No more oreos!" makes more sense, the shot with that quote still offers us

"Donald Trump is simply awe-inspiring" - all who gaze upon him

"I wrote the Art of the Deal" - Donald Trump

lol djp: hey, it's still only april give him a minute

I think policing black identity is one of the places that Trump has left to go once he needs to really unfurl his sails in the general.

the entire reason Trump had momentum to begin with is that he policed the identity of America's most powerful black person

^^^

We really need more intrepid reporters setting rhetorical traps for Trump. He's proven so suggestible and adept at taking the bait thus far, exposing the void where a system of values would lie in a functioning human being. Ask him questions in such a way that it steers him towards voicing a hugely-unpopular and perhaps even broadly offensive position that is in no way reflective of his having given any real thought to the issue. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" as political tool. I like it! Can we get this on the air by Tuesday?