Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

If you had a lawyer, and that lawyer was hired by the person that is suing you to give her daughter private course of 100 000$ an hour, would you keep that lawyer?
Does the law need to state that there is a conflict of interest for you to notice it?
That's like the huge speaking fee for politicians to the financial world.


If the judge need to borrow the car from the very same person to be able to go to the courthouse, would you see a conflict of interest?
Does the law need to state that there is a conflict of interest for you to notice it?
That like politicians NEEDING money from the businesses to even be able to make a political campaign.


As a worker, your interest are not diametrally opposed to those of the financial world, but they are far from aligned, and an easy way to make a lot of money is to exploit workers.
Politicians are both the judges and your lawyers, and you need them impartial.


Also my point is not that Europe is squeaky-clean, just that the US system is ridiculous in ways most Europeans system is not yet (Italy is totally a mafia-state, though, Belgium is a gigantic influence-peddleing market, France elites are gangsters, and I don't know enough about Germany because my German is really not good enough but thing here are far from perfect and worsening fast).).

[Max™]

That's some straight up James Bond shit, fuck, the group names are awesome too, Red Quantum, Absalon, ROC, LOK, Plan Bleu, Aginter Press.

[mainiac]

If you had a lawyer, and that lawyer was hired by the person that is suing you to give her daughter private course of 100 000$ an hour, would you keep that lawyer?

I would report the lawyer to the state bar association and the lawyer would be immediately disbarred for life and face criminal penalties.  That is what we call a conflict of interest and there are laws against it.  We have laws against it because it makes sense to discourage that kind of behavior.

If you had a shitty argument would you make a comparison to something else to try to make your shitty argument seem less shitty?

That like politicians NEEDING money from the businesses to even be able to make a political campaign.

Campaign money and personal income are very different things.  In the US, the federal elections commission audits campaigns to make sure this is true.  Campaigns are required to disclose financial data including personal donations to campaigns.  Loans to campaigns from any source are strictly regulated and US senators have faced criminal penalties for improper handling of such loans so it's not like the FEC is reluctant to report this shit.  So if you want to bitch about personal income then dont act like it's the same as campaign finance.

[Phmcw]

-So why is it ok for a politican to give speech paid over 100 000$ to financial establishment?

-I don't act as if they are the same, I said that it was yet another blatant conflict of interest. And THAT is certainly forbidden in Belgium and in France ; there are strict limit on private funding of political campaigns.

[Silverthrone]

Suffice to say, Donald Duck would make a better president.

Yes, he's got quite the temper, but his heart is in the right place. He knows what it is to be broke. He knows what it is to be a single provider of three. He knows the American Dream when he sees it; sipping lemonade in the hammock after a job well done, maybe catching the baseball game on the radio. He's gotten enough shit by his uncle to be wise to the corporate tricks, while also seeing the benefits of hard work and ambition. He's spent enough time in courts and county jails for throwing tantrums that he's got a clear insight in the justice system. And as far as we know, he hasn't molested any hens. Indeed, one gets the impression that he's making his courting harder than it needs to be, precisely because he wants it to be done right.
Donald Duck is a true, hard working American, trying his best to be upright, honest and kind, although not always successfully. His temper and spirit are strong and free, and let no one tread on it. He is a good man, er, duck, and as good as any to lead the nation.

And by the by, did Trump ever serve in the navy? Did he ever serve the nation in its time of need? Is he a WW2 veteran? Did he ever sing a Cosmic Horror back to sleep? No? I didn't think so.

Donald Duck for President.

[PTTG??]

Yeah going to have to agree,  Donald Duck has the chops to be president in a way trump doesn't even approach.

[Baffler]

And by the by, did Trump ever serve in the navy? Did he ever serve the nation in its time of need? Is he a WW2 veteran? Did he ever sing a Cosmic Horror back to sleep? No? I didn't think so.

Donald Duck for President.

I don't think Donald Duck would be wise to call too much attention to his activities in WWII.

[Reelya]

-So why is it ok for a politican to give speech paid over 100 000$ to financial establishment?

Because they're also a private citizen, and they have the right to get paid for things they do that aren't part of their official duties.

And if you check the dates, the paid speeches were in 2014. Was she ... an elected official at that time? Nope. Was she ... conducting an election campaign at that time? Nope.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

But what is the difference between that and the corrupt lawyer?

[Reelya]

At the time Clinton gave the paid speeches she was not an elected offical, nor was she running a campaign. Corruption involves someone abusing their official duties for profit. Clinton had no official duties at the time of the speeches, therefore there is no conflict of interests. The difference between that and a corrupt lawyer is that a corrupt lawyer is using their influence to distort some legal case - i.e. they had a duty of care they abused in an illegal fashion. There was no duty of care in Clinton's case.

There was only the possibility that she could run for office at some point after she gave the paid engagement. She was no longer Secretary Of State, and she hadn't announced her campaign policies at that time yet. If Wall Street influenced what platform she's running on, then America still has yet to vote on whether they accept that platform. It was not corrupt to give a paid speech to Wall Street or have your future election platform influenced by Wall Street - you're still getting a vote on that platform.

If there is any corruption involved with the speech, it hasn't occurred yet. What would be corrupt is for Clinton to renege on her election promises in a way that benefits the Wall Street backers. As this hasn't happened yet, it's conjecture about the future, not a statement about what happened.

[Silverthrone]

It was a nightmare for VICTORY! Further, that bedroom is the most American interior design seen by mortal eyes. Mr. Duck's patriotism is assured.

Yeah going to have to agree,  Donald Duck has the chops to be president in a way trump doesn't even approach.

I'd love to see that debate. The Dumber D would say something inappropriate about roast duck, and Double-D would let him have it. Thankfully, no one can hear what he says when he's angry.

[Phmcw]

How is it corrupt to give a paid speech at a time when you're not actually in office, and you're also not running an election campaign?

At the time Clinton gave the paid speeches she was doing neither of those things.

She gave political speeches and was invited as a politician.

And yeah, if you want something resembling democracy, not allowing your politician to take money from lobbies and interest group in any form is the bare minimum.

[mainiac]

And yeah, if you want something resembling democracy, not allowing your politician to take money from lobbies and interest group in any form is the bare minimum.

Did you know that Hillary Clinton wants to undo the citizens united court case that removed the limits on campaign finance?
Did you know that the original citizens united case was about a special interest group launching attacks on Hillary Clinton herself?

It's pretty poetic actually.  They started the whole travesty by attacking Hillary Clinton and she will probably be the one who puts an end to this.

[Reelya]

Although the Clinton speech again seems like a weird one to narrow in on, when there are countless cases of e.g. long-term sitting congressmen getting direct payments from big pharma, constantly vetoing bills to protect the consumer. And I don't see any of the "keep them honest" people in this thread interested in pursuing any of those people.

Sure, you can say that Clinton could be unduly influenced in her campaign platform due to which groups helped her financially before the election campaign, but that's an odd thing to aim a microscope at, since she wasn't any sort of official at the time (and hadn't announced her platform yet), and we have heaps of examples of actual elected officials taking questionable money and making questionable official decisions. Clinton was paid for speaking at a time she had zero official duties: so potentially influenced if she's elected. Republican Congressmen are on a constant money-drip from big corporations and keep fucking the public over in ways that benefit those corporations, but the money is laundered because it's "campaign contributions". Which one represents a conflict of interests?

[UXLZ]

The difference is that she's running for president, probably. Honestly, the money-in-politics thing is a massive issue in basically every "democratic" country on the planet.

I think I remember a study done for the USA showing that non-upperclass citizens (e.g. people who weren't wealthy) had no statistically significant influence on what policies and legislation were actually enacted.