Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 738121 times)

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2600 on: July 29, 2016, 01:56:38 PM »
Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling.  At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those.  The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel.  Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive.  If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not.  If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that.  Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.

An unborn child's heartbeat can be detected, separate the mothers, starting at 18 days after conception and 21 days pumping blood through his/her circulatory system. An unborn child's brainwaves can be detected starting at 6 weeks after conception. An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Yet we commonly abort long after these processes have started. You've made the decision to have a child when you made the decision to create the child, and I don't think you have any more right to abort a life in the womb anymore than s right to abandon your child after birth.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2601 on: July 29, 2016, 01:58:20 PM »
I don't think you have any more right to abort a life in the womb anymore than s right to abandon your child after birth.

Okay.  The vast majority of the western world and the law in our country disagrees with you.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2602 on: July 29, 2016, 02:05:59 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2603 on: July 29, 2016, 02:09:10 PM »
Just a side note, the fetus is not separate, thinking or feeling.  At times when you can abort the CNS is not developed enough to do any of those.  The neuronal system needs to finish connecting enough to process the stimuli required to think or feel.  Also, the reason why bodily autonomy is important here is that the fetus is not separate, it requires the mother/host to survive.  If people really cared about the fetus, there would be funding for autonomous wombs, there is not.  If the fetus is separate and therefore can be removed from me and live, sure let's do that.  Except at that point women can't legally have the fetus removed.

An unborn child's heartbeat can be detected, separate the mothers, starting at 18 days after conception and 21 days pumping blood through his/her circulatory system. An unborn child's brainwaves can be detected starting at 6 weeks after conception. An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Yet we commonly abort long after these processes have started. You've made the decision to have a child when you made the decision to create the child, and I don't think you have any more right to abort a life in the womb anymore than s right to abandon your child after birth.
None of your statements are true.  Brainwaves require the CNS to be formed.  Neuronal activity on the cellular level is different than brainwaves.  I can put a neuronal or stem cell into a dish, give it certain nutrients and then get electrical activity, the cell is not thinking.   

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2604 on: July 29, 2016, 02:10:32 PM »

Let's take this a step further, if Obama wants to get rich giving speeches after he's out of office I'm fine with that.  I do however have a problem with fees and donations that seem that create a conflict of interest while Mrs. Obama is in office.

I share some of your concerns, I honestly do, but I think it's a very difficult and unrealistic standard that you are setting up here. 
Literally every single person a past president meets could be considered part of a group of constituents or a 'foreign entity'.  So if we accept that the spouse, son or daughter of a president can also run to be president, any contact the former president has with any group for any reason can be viewed as politically suspicious and a conflict of interest.  The fact that Bill Clinton received $MM for speaking to an extremely broad array of groups is a reason to take a very close look, but unless the money is exchanged for favorable treatment how is it fundamentally different from that same group donating an equal amount to her campaign or holding a fundraiser?

To put this in more concrete terms, is receiving $875k for several paid speeches given to Goldman Sachs in 2013 a bigger conflict of interest for Clinton than the corporate donation of $1.1MM that Goldman Sachs gave to its PAC to support Mitt Romney in 2012?

Actually I do.  That donation to support a PAC doesn't go to Mitt Romney personally (Mitt didn't need the money, but the point stands).  His control over that PAC is limited at best.

The donations to the Clintons and their foundation on the other hand, do enrich them personally.  Personal enrichment is a much bigger motivator than a political contribution and the Clintons have been enriched to an incredible degree.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation personally enrich the Clintons? Really? Do you have any proof of this or is this just an allegation you are throwing around because you don't know any better and believe the Clintons are corrupt?

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2605 on: July 29, 2016, 02:10:53 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2606 on: July 29, 2016, 02:17:37 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/

Lifenews is an antiabortion site and even IT acknowledges the following:

Quote
When it comes to pain specifically, scientific evidence is very clear that pain can be experienced by 20 weeks of pregnancy. But Condic said unborn children have a capacity to feel pain much earlier.

So basically you are calling something a fact that is really conjecture from one person. Conjecture which even Lifenews admits runs contrary to scientific evidence as it understands it.

In the future, one might be advised to be a bit more careful before stating something as if it is a fact when it most definitely is NOT A FACT.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2607 on: July 29, 2016, 02:22:18 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”

As a neuroscientist I can tell you that the universal agreement is that the CNS is not formed enough to pass pain.
 
One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.” 
The only part of her testimony that was correct was the the last bolded line, we do and those are not developed enough at 20 weeks process pain.

And side note, none of her research is within this subfield. 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 02:25:09 PM by Gin1984 »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2608 on: July 29, 2016, 02:36:12 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”

As a neuroscientist I can tell you that the universal agreement is that the CNS is not formed enough to pass pain.
 
One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.” 
The only part of her testimony that was correct was the the last bolded line, we do and those are not developed enough at 20 weeks process pain.

And side note, none of her research is within this subfield.

Well congressional testimony can never wrong. Why look at all those experts from the Tobacco Institute that testified for so many years that smoking doesn't cause cancer....

What a minute!

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2609 on: July 29, 2016, 02:38:46 PM »
An unborn child can feel pain starting at 8 weeks after conception.

Citations please for your 8 week claim. A quick google would seem to indicate that at least one anti-abortion Republican doctor is only definitively claiming that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, much less 8. At least one medical journal put it at more around 27 weeks.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/05/does-a-fetus-feel-pain-at-20-weeks/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/12/expert-told-congress-unborn-babies-can-feel-pain-starting-at-8-weeks/
The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development,” the researcher continued. “There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced ; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.”

As a neuroscientist I can tell you that the universal agreement is that the CNS is not formed enough to pass pain.
 
One reason the JAMA review finds early pain perception unlikely is that the connections between the thalamus, a sort of relay center in the brain, and the cortex have not yet formed. This happens between 23 and 30 weeks gestational age, and the authors argue these connections are a precursor for pain perception. They also cite studies using electroencephalography that have shown the capacity for functional pain in preterm newborns “probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.” 
The only part of her testimony that was correct was the the last bolded line, we do and those are not developed enough at 20 weeks process pain.

And side note, none of her research is within this subfield.

Well congressional testimony can never wrong. Why look at all those experts from the Tobacco Institute that testified for so many years that smoking doesn't cause cancer....

What a minute!

This seems like a good place to transition this subthread to:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/

Within the context of this thread, I suspect that this line of discussion is unlikely to be the topic that changes a person's mind on presidential candidates. We could discuss what the candidate's actual positions are.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2610 on: July 29, 2016, 02:47:44 PM »
This seems like a good place to transition this subthread to:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/please-take-your-abortion-talk-here-you're-ruining-a-perfectly-good-thread/

Good idea.

[MOD NOTE: If you quote an above post about abortion to reply to it, please cut and paste it and put it in the above thread instead. Thanks!] 
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2611 on: July 29, 2016, 02:59:29 PM »
Not really a criticism, but I found it funny that Mike Pence got all huffy because Obama called Trump a demagogue (not by name) and said that there's no place for name calling in politics. Meanwhile, Trump was tweeting about "Little Mike Bloomberg" and has made mocking nicknames for all his opponents.

It's part of the game. He knew who he was running with. If he can't handle the heat...

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2612 on: July 29, 2016, 04:13:27 PM »
What do you guys think of this?

http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/27/clinton-cash

Specifically, I mean this part:

The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes. Says Schweizer, "WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we're not going to take further action against Ericsson. We're going to ask them to police themselves."

Sure looks like she was into bribes. I noticed that the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned during the convention.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2613 on: July 29, 2016, 05:53:16 PM »
What do you guys think of this?

http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/27/clinton-cash

Specifically, I mean this part:

The Swedish company Ericsson was in trouble with the State Department because it sold telecom equipment to repressive regimes. Says Schweizer, "WikiLeaks cables show the State Department sort of busting up the Swedish foreign minister, saying you need to get Ericsson into line. Ericsson decides that this would be a great time to sponsor a speech by Bill Clinton. They had never done so before. They decided to go big, $750,000 for a 20-minute speech. Bill gives the speech and literally seven days later, the State Department comes out with a statement saying we're not going to take further action against Ericsson. We're going to ask them to police themselves."

Sure looks like she was into bribes. I noticed that the Clinton Foundation was not mentioned during the convention.

I think you could easily find similar stories about almost anyone in politics. Note that I'm an equal opportunity cynic, so this is not me trying to defend Clinton by saying she is no worse than anyone else.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2614 on: July 29, 2016, 06:35:03 PM »
Hm, I doubt it. If as you say it can be done easily, can you do it for Obama? Or for John Kerry?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2615 on: July 29, 2016, 08:29:27 PM »
Can we get a source besides John Stossel?

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2617 on: July 29, 2016, 08:58:39 PM »
Hm, I doubt it. If as you say it can be done easily, can you do it for Obama? Or for John Kerry?

Don't know about Kerry, but there were stories of a sweetheart property deal that Obama got back in Chicago. I would be very much surprised if someone couldn't dig up some kind of accusation of quid pro quo in terms of gifts or donations from lobbyists and some position that he took as Senator.

Unfortunately politicians are ALWAYS accepting money and/or gifts in one form or another from outside interests and then turn around and have to make policy decisions that affect those very same interests. Until you simply outlaw political donations and the hiring family members of politicians, there will always be these sorts of accusations, which people will typically choose to condemn or gloss over depending upon whether they support the politician or not.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2618 on: July 29, 2016, 09:14:46 PM »
This seems like a different level to me, but what do I know. Having an "open for business" sort of situation in which you can directly tie huge payments to State Dept policy seems pretty different from Obama getting a good deal on a house once for which he seems never to have done anything in return. But  maybe I'm missing something.

Also, doesn't it seem like there is a pretty big difference between campaign contributions and direct bribes? Seems different to me.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2619 on: July 29, 2016, 09:26:14 PM »
Here is an independent verification of the relevant payments:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

The speech payments are true. The implication seems to be that the payments went up after Clinton became Secretary of State. It was also after she came close to being elected President herself. Obama barely beat her for the Democratic nomination and its conceivable that some interests saw the speeches as investments in a relationship with a future president. It would be interesting to see if the price tag for the speeches went down after she resigned as Secretary of State.

Now, was there actual quid pro quo? Did the speeches affect any actual policy making. There is no evidence of it. One is left to conjecture based on one's personal feelings about the Clintons. Even if everything was in the up and up, in my view it was a mistake on the Clinton's part to have even an apparent conflict of interest. This is an excellent example of the flaws that Hillary has and how I wish there was an alternative that had her strengths without the baggage.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2620 on: July 29, 2016, 09:31:18 PM »
So Ericsson, who had never paid anything to Bill or Hillary, decides to pay Bill 750k for a 20 min speech. Then, the State department, which had been coming after Ericsson, decides to leave Ericsson alone after that. All of this seems to be verified by multiple sources. But there's no evidence of quid pro quo? I mean, it isn't proof, I guess. But, if you agree that the payment was made, and that the State dept changed its approach to Ericsson subsequently, it seems pretty silly to me to deny that this was a bribe. And of course this is just the most egregious example, but there are others.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2621 on: July 29, 2016, 09:34:03 PM »
This seems like a different level to me, but what do I know. Having an "open for business" sort of situation in which you can directly tie huge payments to State Dept policy seems pretty different from Obama getting a good deal on a house once for which he seems never to have done anything in return. But  maybe I'm missing something.

Also, doesn't it seem like there is a pretty big difference between campaign contributions and direct bribes? Seems different to me.

Except you really can't tie the huge payments to state dept policy. There is no evidence that they are linked, merely conjecture. The author of the book making the original accusations never makes any effort to dig into the background of the policy decision and the justifications for it. His claim is that A caused B, but makes no effort to eliminate the possibility of a C and D and E being the deciding factors.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2622 on: July 29, 2016, 09:39:25 PM »
Suppose it was a quid pro quo. What would count as sufficient evidence of this? Because the case looks obvious to me, again assuming that the facts are as reported.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2623 on: July 29, 2016, 09:44:24 PM »
So Ericsson, who had never paid anything to Bill or Hillary, decides to pay Bill 750k for a 20 min speech. Then, the State department, which had been coming after Ericsson, decides to leave Ericsson alone after that. All of this seems to be verified by multiple sources. But there's no evidence of quid pro quo? I mean, it isn't proof, I guess. But, if you agree that the payment was made, and that the State dept changed its approach to Ericsson subsequently, it seems pretty silly to me to deny that this was a bribe. And of course this is just the most egregious example, but there are others.

Yeah, it looks suspicious, no doubt. Certainly fodder for more digging. Has anyone actually researched the actual details of the policy decision and justifications given, beyond simply making note of a possible A causes B possibility? It is also quite possible that Ericsson hired Bill Clinton to give the speech hoping it would yield favorable results for them, but the state dept would have made the same decision regardless of Ericsson's 'investment'.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2624 on: July 29, 2016, 09:47:51 PM »
Doing some digging on this, I found this - http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/28/peter-schweizer-walks-back-phony-clinton-cash-a/203448

Quote
Schweizer tried to link Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson's payment to former President Bill Clinton for a speech in November 2011 with the exemption of the telecommunications industry from sanctions against Iran... The author's speculation is baseless, as the Iran sanctions in question actually took the form of executive actions from President Obama, and not State Department initiatives... Yahoo News further noted that a Clinton aide pointed out that telecommunications manufacturers like Ericsson have not been added to the sanctions since Clinton left the State Department, casting doubt on the suggestion of a connection between the 2011 Bill Clinton speech and U.S. sanctions policy. .


dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2625 on: July 29, 2016, 09:52:14 PM »
Also this - http://fortune.com/2016/06/22/donald-trump-crooked-hillary/

Quote
Here’s what Fortune found:

Ericsson did pay Bill Clinton $750,000 while Hillary was Secretary of State, but the assertion that the company faced sanctions isn’t entirely true. Yes, the SEC did send Ericsson a letter in 2010 asking it to explain the nature of its operations in Iran, but Ericsson’s response makes it clear that the business it did in Iran was for commercial rather than for military purposes.

The book is unable to show any evidence that the State Department wanted to quash the business Ericsson was doing in Iran prior to Bill Clinton’s speech. In fact, there is evidence that the Clinton State Department and the rest of the Obama Administration wanted to spread the use of communications technology—like that which Ericsson provides—in Iran, in order to help dissidents combat oppressive governments.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2626 on: July 29, 2016, 10:03:45 PM »
Here is an independent verification of the relevant payments:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/

That doesn't prove what your or that terrible article claims. The payments went up, yes. But where is the evidence that Ericsson was even close to being sanctioned? They got a letter asking for some information. Big deal. 

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2627 on: July 30, 2016, 08:32:43 AM »
I already said it wasn't proof. Proof is almost impossible in these sorts of cases. I said it stinks so bad that it's silly to think that it isn't a bribe (or, I'll now add, at least an attempted bribe). I stand by that.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2628 on: July 30, 2016, 08:45:06 AM »
I already said it wasn't proof. Proof is almost impossible in these sorts of cases. I said it stinks so bad that it's silly to think that it isn't a bribe (or, I'll now add, at least an attempted bribe). I stand by that.

Except now it appears there is some justification to believe that the decision that benefited Ericsson wasn't even made by the State Department and that the Obama administration wanted phone manufacturers like Ericsson to be exempt from sanctions to help promote the spreading of liberalism in Iran. So yeah, money was received but the evidence seems to point in the direction of there NO causality.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2629 on: July 30, 2016, 08:49:54 AM »
If we agree that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them, I'm happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2630 on: July 30, 2016, 09:21:59 AM »
If we agree that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them, I'm happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree? No, you don't get off that easily. Your alleged bombshell was a dud that even the original accuser has backed down from. This has been nothing more than the same ol' anti-Clinton bullshit accusations trying to tie A to B without any proof whatsoever and disregarding all the evidence to the contrary. You might as well be arguing the Clintons killed Vince Foster. Its about as legit as what you've presented.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2631 on: July 30, 2016, 09:30:05 AM »
I don't get off of what? All I've claimed is that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them. You're not denying that, are you? Many of us think that stinks. Go ahead and say it doesn't stink. There's nothing else I'm going to say to convince you.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2632 on: July 30, 2016, 09:55:10 AM »
I don't get off of what? All I've claimed is that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them. You're not denying that, are you? Many of us think that stinks. Go ahead and say it doesn't stink. There's nothing else I'm going to say to convince you.

Yeah, it stinks... like bull shit stinks. It stinks about as much as the millions that Reagon earned shortly after he left office giving speeches to the Japanese. It stinks as much as money both Bushes earned giving speeches after they left office. Stinks about as much as Vince Foster committing suicide after having done business with the Clintons.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 40
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2633 on: July 30, 2016, 11:27:48 AM »
I don't get off of what? All I've claimed is that the payment was made after State started to cause trouble for Ericsson, and that State subsequently caused no trouble for them. You're not denying that, are you? Many of us think that stinks. Go ahead and say it doesn't stink. There's nothing else I'm going to say to convince you.

Did you read the sources dramaman provided? Because they are far more compelling than "B happened after A, therefore A caused B!" I mean, I am very far from being Hillary's biggest fan, but at this point I don't think anyone that is rationally considering the facts can call that sequence of events evidence of bribery.

If you want to criticize Hillary, there are plenty of more fruitful paths you can follow. I would suggest you start with her expansionist support of Obama's drone policy.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2634 on: July 30, 2016, 12:23:36 PM »
Where's the evidence the State was causing trouble for Ericsson? The SEC sent a letter asking for information about their operations in numerous countries that are on the state sponsors of terrorism list.

Ericsson responded with this: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/717826/000119312510219206/filename1.htm

It's clear they supply equipment that power cellphone networks used by civilians, something Clinton appears supportive of. http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2011/12/178511.htm

There's zero evidence Ericsson received special treatment because of Bill's speech. You just want it to be true.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2635 on: July 30, 2016, 01:14:20 PM »
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2636 on: July 30, 2016, 01:20:52 PM »
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be


dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2637 on: July 30, 2016, 01:31:36 PM »
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.

And the point you seem to miss is that THIS SORT OF THING HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, yet you are singling out Clinton for special criticism. Yeah, maybe its not a speech for hundreds of thousand of dollars, but private companies find all sorts of ways to get in bed with politicians, whether by speeches, buying lots of books, trips, lending property, hiring family members, etc. Yes it stinks, BUT NO MORE THAN ANY OF THESE OTHER SITUATIONS. And do you really believe the man behind Trump U, the man who for decades has operated on the OTHER side of the equation and brags about it will be ANY DIFFERENT? If Trump wins, the day after the election you can bet that Trump family members will be taking advantage of multiple offers being thrown at them.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2638 on: July 30, 2016, 01:32:35 PM »
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be

Well to be fair, there was Benghazi and the email server, but those never panned out the way her critics had hoped they would.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2639 on: July 30, 2016, 01:33:16 PM »
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.

Your point keeps changing. Your first couple posts made it sound like a smoking gun of corruption. Now your point is "it feels icky". If that's what you instincts tell you, then fine. But don't pretend there is any actual evidence of wrongdoing.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2640 on: July 30, 2016, 01:36:52 PM »
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be

Well to be fair, there was Benghazi and the email server, but those never panned out the way her critics had hoped they would.

Really, it brought her down to the point where a blowhard like Trump presents a threat. It has undermined her candidacy from the start which polls continue to show that Americans regard her as a liar and untrustworthy. I'd say it's worked so far, but we'll see come November.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2641 on: July 30, 2016, 01:41:34 PM »
I found this little gem, it's a video as an attack on Hillary from Obama in 2008. Not much has changed about the common gripes about Hillary in the last 8 years: "Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing." Not much has changed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs&feature=youtu.be

Well to be fair, there was Benghazi and the email server, but those never panned out the way her critics had hoped they would.

Really, it brought her down to the point where a blowhard like Trump presents a threat. It has undermined her candidacy from the start which polls continue to show that Americans regard her as a liar and untrustworthy. I'd say it's worked so far, but we'll see come November.

True. I'd say the email thing more than Benghazi. But unlike Benghazi, the email server was totally self-inflicted.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2642 on: July 30, 2016, 01:45:00 PM »
Maybe you all are fine with a company giving absurd sums of money to a sitting secretary of state who is involved in deciding whether to sanction them. I'm not. Even if I grant the point that the administration had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning Ericsson, or that the state dept didn't have total control over the decision, that doesn't touch the point I'm making.

Ok, let's just beat this to death, then.
1. Her speaking fees, and Bill Clinton's are in the market price range for speakers of their caliber. Jerry Seinfeld gets about $200k a pop, Charlie Rose gets $50k a pop, Condoleeza Rice gets $150k a pop. Donald Trump has received up to $1.5 million for a talk (which was a real estate conference, so may have also been a skim as he is prone to do). Most of the individual speeches fell in the $150 to $200K range. See document embedded at: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/   This can be thought of similarly to the exorbitant amount that pro-sports players earn- it is proportional to the unique niche and market price.
2. I found some information that she donated on the order of $17 million of her speaking fees to the Clinton Foundation (which has about %10 overhead, which is low for non-profits). I couldn't find a reference for the $17 million that I trust all that much, so would appreciate if anyone knows of a good reference for that.

In short: the fees were not out of line with other equivalent speakers, a significant amount of speaking fees are donated to charity, and I just don't see a compelling case for corruption based on this incident, or the speaking fees in general.
2.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2643 on: July 30, 2016, 01:51:35 PM »
I'm usually one of the few people that supports their assertions with evidence




chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2644 on: July 30, 2016, 01:56:18 PM »
My point is not that it feels icky, and I haven't changed my point. My point is that it was very plausibly a quid pro quo, and, even if you decline to believe that, it's still true that she took a large sum of money from a company who was being scrutuized by the administration, and that's already wrongdoing. I'm just really repeating myself. And, in response to dramaman, it's wrongdoing irrespective of who else did similar things (though I doubt that this sort of thing goes on as often as you suggest). And I'm not a Trump supporter; he's horrible too. Finally, I never said that Clinton was paid more than other celebrity speakers.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2645 on: July 30, 2016, 02:03:42 PM »
My point is not that it feels icky, and I haven't changed my point. My point is that it was very plausibly a quid pro quo, and, even if you decline to believe that, it's still true that she took a large sum of money from a company who was being scrutuized by the administration, and that's already wrongdoing. I'm just really repeating myself. And, in response to dramaman, it's wrongdoing irrespective of who else did similar things (though I doubt that this sort of thing goes on as often as you suggest). And I'm not a Trump supporter; he's horrible too. Finally, I never said that Clinton was paid more than other celebrity speakers.

You keep changing your assertion. First you claim the speech money alludes to wrongdoing due to possible quid pro quo. Then when we show you evidence that there was no quid pro quo and thus no wrongdoing, you backtrack and claim that merely taking the money was wrong because it stinks. When we point out that there was nothing THAT remarkable about taking the money, you flip flop back to possible quid pro quo. The way you keep changing your tune, I'm starting to think you just might be Donald J. Tump.

chad

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 93
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2646 on: July 30, 2016, 02:09:11 PM »
Cute. I see that I haven't been very clear, and I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to be frustrating. I do think that it was a quid pro quo: money for influence. And I think she probably did end up favorably disposed to that company when she gave her input into the administration's decision. I can't prove that, though I still think it's pretty obvious that it is what happened. But I see that you all aren't going for that. So, in response, I make another claim: it's bad enough that she took the money while having the kind of influence that she had. You all seem to think that's not that bad if I can't prove quid pro quo. We just disagree about that. So hopefully we all at least understand where we disagree at this point.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2647 on: July 30, 2016, 02:13:52 PM »
1. Her speaking fees, and Bill Clinton's are in the market price range for speakers of their caliber. Jerry Seinfeld gets about $200k a pop, Charlie Rose gets $50k a pop, Condoleeza Rice gets $150k a pop. Donald Trump has received up to $1.5 million for a talk (which was a real estate conference, so may have also been a skim as he is prone to do). Most of the individual speeches fell in the $150 to $200K range.

I think there's a substantial difference between a private party (Jerry Seinfeld) charging a fee for a speech and a representative of the government charging a fee. The government representative is a servant of the people, is earning a salary to serve the people, and shouldn't be profiting from their position when he/she is employed by the government. That's the problem people have, it's not that she made money and gave it to charity, it's that she did by leveraging her government position and public trust.

I know that it happens all over the government and I protest that more than I do Hillary, because she's just a small representation of cronyism within government.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2648 on: July 30, 2016, 02:32:10 PM »
...
Substantial difference between a private party (Jerry Seinfeld) charging a fee for a speech and a representative of the government charging a fee. The government representative is a servant of the people, is earning a salary to serve the people, and shouldn't be profiting from their position when he/she is employed by the government. That's the problem people have, it's not that she made money and gave it to charity, it's that she did by leveraging her government position and public trust.

I know that it happens all over the government and I protest that more than I do Hillary, because she's just a small representation of cronyism within government.

To me it does seem like a practice that should be more restricted for our upper-tier federal employees, but currently it is completely legal.  As such, I have a hard time demonizing someone for using the legal opportunities available to them to earn money.  They did give ~10% of their post-tax income to charity (albeit mostly to the Clinton Foundation), so there is that.  After taxes and charitable donations their income was around $10MM - certainly enough to put them in the 0.1% but still orders of magnitude off what the billionaire-class can earn per year.

I am curious - do you think the ongoing business deals of Trump (which he describes frquently as earning him "Billions") are also an area of concern? Should Trump win, is it ethically permissible for him to keep earning money from his businesses while making decisions that might enrich himself and (potentially) detract from competitors?

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2649 on: July 30, 2016, 02:42:43 PM »
Cute. I see that I haven't been very clear, and I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean to be frustrating. I do think that it was a quid pro quo: money for influence. And I think she probably did end up favorably disposed to that company when she gave her input into the administration's decision. I can't prove that, though I still think it's pretty obvious that it is what happened. But I see that you all aren't going for that. So, in response, I make another claim: it's bad enough that she took the money while having the kind of influence that she had. You all seem to think that's not that bad if I can't prove quid pro quo. We just disagree about that. So hopefully we all at least understand where we disagree at this point.

On the quid pro quo point, not only can't your prove your assertion, but your opinion actually conflicts with the known facts. The fact that Bill Clinton was paid for a speech in no way invalidates the logic for why the Obama Administration would have wanted Ericcson and other cell phone technology providers exporting their technology to Iran support the civilian cell phone infrastructure.

On your second point, I doubt any of us think its necessarily a good thing when a politician or a politician's family gets entangled financially in a company or interest that the politician has some oversight over. The fact is, however, that this is not illegal and THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I think our only complaint is that you are singling out Clinton when there is nothing really unique about this situation nor any evidence that the money had any undue influence. In that context, it just becomes another generic complaint about the Clintons by people who don't like the Clintons.