Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

More Chinese funny money for Hillary.

Old 10-23-07, 11:13 PM
  #1  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
More Chinese funny money for Hillary.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10...rs_gave_c.html
Hmm: Chinese Dishwashers Gave Clinton Thousands
But can she look us in the eye and explain it?

Not a month after the Norman Hsu flap (and eleven years after the Chinese government supposedly tried to help finance Bill’s reelection), Hillary is on the defensive about taking money from Chinese immigrant benefactors. This time, it looks even more awkward. As the L.A. Times reported late last week, the candidate’s fund-raising swing through the Chinese community of New York resulted in $500 to $2,300 donations from people identified as “dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers.” Of the 150 donors on paper, 50 couldn’t be located, and at least one openly says he hasn’t contributed to the campaign. An April fund-raiser in a poor neighborhood fetched $380,000.
Clinton’s current reasoning — “There were more than 250 people at the event” — doesn’t quite compute, because that makes the average donation an awfully high $1,520 (the absolute maximum allowed per person is $2,300). In other words, it certainly looks like some entity is using New York’s Chinese immigrant community to funnel funds into the Hillary campaign. If that’s true — or, to be more cynical but accurate, if the Clinton machine doesn’t produce a great explanation — then Christmas just might have come early for Rudy and the gang: The “Chinese donor” is, once again, a full-service bogeyman haunting the Democratic campaign. Of course, Rudy is the one actually doing business with China, but at least he's totally open about it: It says so right on the Giuliani Safety & Security Asia Website.
Both Clintons have a hard time saying no to Chinese funny money.
bhk is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 05:43 AM
  #2  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,128
The problem is will it really make a difference to people? I mean these stories were out there during Bill's years as well and very few people seemed to care. Right now IMHO a lot of people seem to have stars in their eyes when it comes to Hillary as if once she gets in the "peace" and "prosperity" of the 90s is going to magically return. Never mind the 90s weren't really all that peaceful (granted more so than compared to now, but we were at war even then and chose to ignore it, plus the fact since we have been actively at war the past 6 years or so the context is entirely different). Nor the fact the "prosperity" brought about by the dawning of the age of the I'net as a business model (even if it was just a bubble) is not going to happen again. With those sorts of expectations though I think a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening if she does get elected.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 06:40 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The answer - no, it doesn't make any difference.

It only makes a difference to people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway - like bhk.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 09:32 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 14,204
Originally Posted by nemein
The problem is will it really make a difference to people? I mean these stories were out there during Bill's years as well and very few people seemed to care. Right now IMHO a lot of people seem to have stars in their eyes when it comes to Hillary as if once she gets in the "peace" and "prosperity" of the 90s is going to magically return. Never mind the 90s weren't really all that peaceful (granted more so than compared to now, but we were at war even then and chose to ignore it, plus the fact since we have been actively at war the past 6 years or so the context is entirely different). Nor the fact the "prosperity" brought about by the dawning of the age of the I'net as a business model (even if it was just a bubble) is not going to happen again. With those sorts of expectations though I think a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening if she does get elected.
Simple question, neimen: how can things possibly get worse? As bad as President Hillary Clinton could possibly be -- and I know from a conservative viewpoint, many of her proposals probably ruffle your feathers -- honestly, do you really believe that if she or any other Democrat gets into office that things will actually get worse in this country?

(I know how other posters on this forum would answer that question -- many of them can't see past their own partisanship -- but I think a bit more highly or you.)

As for whether or not things were really all that rosy in the 90s... I think without question it can be said that, at the very least, the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton was competent. Let's for the moment dismiss everything else -- say that the economic gains were illusory, and that our foreign policy successes were overstated, and that many of the domestic achievements like welfare reform and the budget surplus were trumped up and imaginary, etc.. At the very least, you'd have to concede that the government was well-managed, right? The Justice Department wasn't blindingly partisan, the State Department wasn't merely a mouthpiece to jingostic propaganda, FEMA promptly responded to natural disasters with real aid instead of ATM cards... I mean, top to bottom, do you really believe that the Clinton government was incompetent? Or conversely, that the Bush government has been in any way even moderately competent?

Any Democratic president will almost have to be an improvement, right? Even Kucinich couldn't screw the country up that much.

NCMojo is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 09:36 AM
  #5  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,342
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Any Democratic president will almost have to be an improvement, right? Even Kucinich couldn't screw the country up that much.
You almost had me convinced, and then you had to go and blow it with your conclusion.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 09:46 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,562
Originally Posted by classicman2
The answer - no, it doesn't make any difference.

It only makes a difference to people who wouldn't vote for Hillary anyway - like bhk.
Most people probably think (if they think about it at all) that there shouldn't be any limit attached to political donations anyway.
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 10:27 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Hoboken, NJ
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
Most people probably think (if they think about it at all) that there shouldn't be any limit attached to political donations anyway.
Eh, I don't think most people believe so. I think campaign finance reform tends to be popular "feel good" legislation.

Whenever I've discussed it with friends, family - most seem to have no trouble thinking there should be limits. When I explain to them that the limits are illusory and people find ways to hide whatever donations they want I'm usually dismissed.

I'd much prefer complete open, unrestricted donations. It'd be much more telling that someone was receiving 50k + from most CEOs, or whatever.
Birrman54 is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 10:57 AM
  #8  
Moderator
 
wendersfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Nuova Repubblica di Salò
Posts: 32,342
Originally Posted by Birrman54
Eh, I don't think most people believe so. I think campaign finance reform tends to be popular "feel good" legislation.
I'm inclined to agree, but I don't have any data to back that up, so I'll reserve comment.
wendersfan is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:00 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 24,562
Originally Posted by Birrman54
Eh, I don't think most people believe so. I think campaign finance reform tends to be popular "feel good" legislation.

Whenever I've discussed it with friends, family - most seem to have no trouble thinking there should be limits. When I explain to them that the limits are illusory and people find ways to hide whatever donations they want I'm usually dismissed.

I'd much prefer complete open, unrestricted donations. It'd be much more telling that someone was receiving 50k + from most CEOs, or whatever.
I said it poorly, but is actually the point I was trying to get across. Well put.
DVD Josh is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:18 AM
  #10  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,128
I mean, top to bottom, do you really believe that the Clinton government was incompetent? Or conversely, that the Bush government has been in any way even moderately competent?
Obviously no admin is perfect so there are some things Clinton did drop the ball on (the growing threat of terrorism being the primary one IMHO, but there are others to). WRT whether Bush's admin has been competent it depends upon what you define as competent. I believe they had certain goals in mind (doing something about Iraq and restoring some of the "lost power" [in their minds] of the executive office) when they came into office and most indicators are they have made most of those goals. Now whether or not those goals were helpful/harmful to the country, and whether or not they will actually last in the future, is up for debate.



Any Democratic president will almost have to be an improvement
Actually I think any other person at this point (Dem or Rep) would be an improvement if for no other reason than all the issues people have w/ Bush will hopefully start to die down. Along those lines though I don't think we need to perpetuate the Bush/Clinton oligarchy. It's time to put both of these families out to pasture and get some fresh blood in. Right now though Hillary is the front runner and I'm pretty sure in part it's because people have unrealistic expectations about her term somehow being a continuation (or return to might be a better phrase) of Bill's term.

Last edited by nemein; 10-24-07 at 11:25 AM.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:20 AM
  #11  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,128
I'd much prefer complete open, unrestricted donations. It'd be much more telling that someone was receiving 50k + from most CEOs, or whatever.
Yep let people give how ever much they want to give, but make sure everything is completely above board/out in the open.
nemein is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:22 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
if they can't make everything out in the open right now with $2300 donations, what makes yall think they can make it open with unlimited donations?
Venusian is offline  
Old 10-24-07, 11:28 AM
  #13  
Moderator
 
nemein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,128
Originally Posted by Venusian
if they can't make everything out in the open right now with $2300 donations, what makes yall think they can make it open with unlimited donations?
I think part of the problem is the fact that there is a limit so it encourages people to hide their donations. If you change the laws to state unlimited donations are allowed but every dime has to have a documented/validated source attached to it I think some of these problems are going to go away. Granted there will still be some people who will want their contributions hidden for whatever reason, but I think those will be fewer/easier to track down.
nemein is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.